Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

[thorbiorn]

If one begins to adjust the chronology, many other pieces may need readjustment too:

Almagest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Almagest /ˈælmədʒɛst/ is a 2nd-century Greek-language mathematical and astronomical treatise on the apparent motions of the stars and planetary paths, written by Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 100 – c. 170). One of the most influential scientific texts in history, it canonized a geocentric model of the Universe that was accepted for more than 1200 years from its origin in Hellenistic Alexandria, in the medieval Byzantine and Islamic worlds, and in Western Europe through the Middle Ages and early Renaissance until Copernicus. It is also a key source of information about ancient Greek astronomy.

[...]

Even without the errors introduced by copyists, and even accounting for the fact that the longitudes are more appropriate for 58 AD than for 137 AD, the latitudes and longitudes are not very accurate, with errors of large fractions of a degree. Some errors may be due to atmospheric refraction causing stars that are low in the sky to appear higher than where they really are.[17] A series of stars in Centaurus are off by a couple degrees, including the star we call Alpha Centauri. These were probably measured by a different person or persons from the others, and in an inaccurate way.[18]

58 AD would then be before Vesuvius or the collapse of the Roman Empire.

 

[Mike]

And there's a giant arch dedicated to him that still stands in Rome, inscribed with homage to 'Constantine the Great' in Latin. A later forgery on an older arch??

Looks like it might be both - see below.

How hard? I don't know. Is there any evidence that this particular one was changed? Surely an expert or two would have noticed that by now? The Arch of Constantine is a major Roman monument and tourist attraction.

In terms of possible forgery:

From the Wikipedia of ‘The Arch of Constantine’:

Arch of Constantine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During the Middle Ages, the Arch of Constantine was incorporated into one of the family strongholds of ancient Rome, as shown in the painting by Herman van Swanevelt, here. Works of restoration were first carried out in the 18th century,[10][c]

Deane[11] comments that Gradara[12] published an excerpt from the diary of Pietro Bracci in 1732, in which Bracci states that he carved new heads for seven of the Dacian slaves surmounting the columns and a completely new statue for the eighth (right of centre, south side). He also made new heads for the emperors and other figures on the reliefs between the slaves

Pg 91 of the document and pg 9 of the file on the website describes where this information on ‘restoration’ comes from:

Archaeological News on JSTOR

The pdf of the document that you can download does don’t download to this actual document, so I took a screen capture of the jstor and here is a picture of it:



Here is what Gardara published (not in English):

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma (46.1918)

From Peitro Bracci’s Wikipedia:

Pietro Bracci - Wikipedia

Like all sculptors in Rome since the 16th century, Bracci was often called upon to restore or complete Roman sculptures, such as the Capitoline Antinous, to render them suitable for display.

So there is evidence of changes that were made in the 1700’s that may lend itself to the possibility of forgery.

In terms of it being and older arch:

Again, from the from the Wikipedia of ‘The Arch of Constantine’:

Controversy

There has been much controversy over the origins of the arch, with some scholars claiming that it should no longer be referred to as Constantine's arch, but is in fact an earlier work from the time of Hadrian, reworked during Constantine's reign,[3] or at least the lower part.[d] Another theory holds that it was erected, or at least started, by Maxentius,[5][e] and one scholar believed it was as early as the time of Domitian (81–96).[15][3]

From looking into the references in the above quote:

Who Built the Arch of Constantine?

Hardly anything might seem more audacious than to deny that the arch of Constantine was built in honor of that emperor; yet the really amazing thing is our failure to attend to the numerous hints that this arch had existed long before Constantine. Artists and archaeologists have always been...

books.google.com

Who Built the Arch of Constantine?: Its History from Domitian to Constantine

Arthur Lincoln Frothingham, Ph.d.

Hardly anything might seem more audacious than to deny that the arch of Constantine was built in honor of that emperor; yet the really amazing thing is our failure to attend to the numerous hints that this arch had existed long before Constantine. Artists and archaeologists have always been un-able to explain how an architect of the decadent age of Constantine could have given to this arch its marvellous proportions and silhouette, which set it above all other arches, even those of the golden age (Fig. 1). Historians have been puzzled by the silence of that early catalogue of the buildings at Rome, the Notitia, issued before Constantine's death (334 A.D.), which assigns to Constantine, apparently, only the Janus in the Forum Boarium. The same Notitia increases the mystery by speaking of an Arcus Novus on the Via Lata, which can only be the arch of Diocletian, dedicated in 303. If in 334 the arch of 303 was still the latest of triumphal arches, how could an arch have been built to Constantine in 315 ?

Here is the actual book - Who Built the Arch of Constantine? Its History from Domitian to Constantine (Analecta Gorgiana): Arthur L. Frothingham: 9781607245278: Amazon.com: Books

Here is a PDF from the same author and the same subject - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.2307/497194

Where we read:

It is my expectation to prove in this paper that the arch was built long before Constantine; also to show that its construction should probably be ascribed to the Emperor Dominitian, shortly before or after 90 A.D., some 225 years before the dedication to Constantine. After the assassination of Domitian, his memoriae damnatio by the senate condemned to mutilation, and sometimes to destruction, all his public monuments, and especially his memorial and triumphal arches, which were closest to him, personally. The dedicatory inscriptions, the statues and reliefs in his honor, were destroyed. His works where spared became ownerless and could be rededicated by or to any emperor, as was the case, for instance, with the Forum of Nerva. But, throughout the second century, this arch, so strongly associated with the odious memory of a tyrant, remained unchanged and unclaimed, for during this prosperous age of the Antonines the senate continued to build special arches for each triumphing emperor. It was only during the third century, when Rome, impoverished and suffering from the frequent absence of the emperors, with an art in constant decay, and with building operations almost suspended for a half century, resorted to makeshifts in the way of triumphal monuments. Between 203 when the senate built the arch to Septimius Severus and 303 when one was consecrated to Diocletian, we know of the erection of but a single triumphal arch, that of Gordian III, ca. 240. What was done by the senate during these hundred years to commemorate imperial victories? I expect to show that the senate utilized for this purpose the ex-Domitianic arch, turning this wound-scarred war-horse into a marvellous historic bulletin board, a triumphal mosaic and palimpsest, which became the quintessence of Roman history during the third century. Then, between 312 and 315, after it had thus long been purged of its original evil association and, as its inscription boasts, become "famous for its many triumphs," its evolution closed, and it was once more dedicated to a single emperor, to Constantine, after a unique and varied career, to be honored throughout the ages as a monument to the first Christian emperor.

Here another book referenced in the Wikipedia entry - Amazon.com: The Arch of Constantine: Inspired by the Divine: 9781445601298: Ferris, Iain: Books

The Amazon blurb for the book:

Right next to the Colosseum in Rome stands the Arch of Constantine. Completed AD 312 - 315, it was built to celebrate ten years of the Emperor Constantine's reign and his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The arch is undoubtedly the most impressive civic monument surviving from this period. At 69 feet high, this triumphal arch is a key attraction for tourists visiting Rome. And yet this is the first modern book in English on the monument. Iain Ferris analyses the arch and the reign of Constantine himself, as well as discussing the reuse of artworks salvaged from older monuments in its construction, its complex and impressive decoration, and the use of arches as civic commemorative monuments in the Roman world. All of this is set against the broader geographical, chronological and cultural context.

From a review on amazon about the book:

THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE by Iain Ferris (author of HATE AND WAR The Column of Marcus Aurelius) is an outstanding and comprehensive study of what is considered to be the last and arguably the most magnificent of Rome's triumphal monuments. The first chapter is a fine overview of the political and personal background to the life and times of Constantine and its potential relevance as to what appears on the Arch and where. Here, as is the case throughout the book, the well written text is buttressed by an abundance of detailed and clear photographs in b&w which clarify and support what is being expounded. The second chapter deals with the material fabric and achitectural/sculptural structure of the Arch as well as the significance of what is inscribed on its attic (thus the sub-title of the book: "Inspired by the Divine"). Ferris also addresses the seminal scholarship of Elizabeth Marlowe who has dealt with the Arch's place in the urban topography or Rome, possibly equal in importance to what is actually presented on the monument itself. The longtime debate about who built the Arch and when is discussed in depth; and the author comes out on the side of the generally accepted conclusion that it was indeed constructed to honor Constantine with the groundwork for it beginning in 313AD.

The controversy extends to a number of other public buildings attributed to Constantine, as hinted at by Aurelius Victor in De Caesaribus[9]

Here is the reference 9, for “the controversy extends” - https://web.archive.org/web/20140124192300/http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/imagegallerywww/fab2bcd8-33c3-4d30-a266-ead051c8383b/ImageGallery/FramingtheSun.pdf

So it indeed looks like The Arch of Constantine could be an older arch.

What a DARN mess!

 

[Human]

If one begins to adjust the chronology, many other pieces may need readjustment too:

Almagest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[...]
58 AD would then be before Vesuvius or the collapse of the Roman Empire.

For a forgery in history to pass 'unnoticed' for long, especially with modern scientific tools available at hand, forger(s) had to at least 'accommodate' astronomical records of the time and get help afterwards, like secret societies 'guarding' the secret and making sure it's not disclosed. An extreme type of 'accommodation' would be complete deletion of any astronomical record available, though maybe not the 'smartest' way to do it because things might end up like that most curious phenomenon that famous supernova SN 1054 was not recorded outside of East Asia.

2003JAHH....6...46S Page 46

Not only in Europe, but also Arabs don't have any mention about SN 1054 except a "work that cited an observation probably originated from Constantinople"!
How could that be possible, Arabic world had good astronomers, they observed SN 1006 that could be seen for 3 days (some European chronicles contain records of that 'new star' also) and then 50y later they have only 1 record "citing an observation from Constantinople" of a 'star' in the sky visible for 23 days during daytime?!

Study from 2007 'confirmed' 1054 AD as origin date for Crab Nebula (remains of SN 1054), but method of comparing photographs 17y apart still leaves some room for doubt regarding 100y (old) puzzle.

While the Crab Nebula's location in the sky agreed very well with the reported position of this bright new star, several studies of the expanding cloud of stellar debris unexpectedly indicated that it was expanding much too fast to be associated with a supernova explosion in 1054. Instead, these studies pointed later in time, toward an explosion date in the first half of the 12th century.

Here I'm sitting and thinking we're lacking an astronomical event in European historical records (and Arabic one too, to which I can only shake my head in disbelief) of great significance and instead we have religious event of kinda same order; instead of records of a death of a star in constellation Taurus, we have records of death of Christianity (religion in 'constellation Pisces') and the Great Schism.

In a supernova, explosion usually leaves beautiful stellar 'sarcophagus' behind it to mark the place of bombastic death of a star with knowledge of what happened for future generations. As time passes, site can change appearance and 'sarcophagus' can fade away from sight, but knowledge remains, although not necessarily always visible to bare eyes.

What about 'religious supernova', the Great Schism of 1054 AD that happened in Constantinople or more suitably called Carigrad (Slavic name for Constantinople; car = Tzar/Caesar; grad = city/town), what were its fruits? Suffering and bloodshed for the most part, especially for Slavic peoples who ended up divided between East and West. Shouldn't 'supernova event' produce "moral renewal" like said it happened with Charlemagne?

For Slavic peoples, there was 'an event' that smitten them like a religious supernova - brothers St. Cyril and Methodius and their missionary journeys, which not only brought Christianity to Slavs, but altogether literacy in such a way that Cyril created special 'alphabet', glagolitic script, which letters were in fact representing whole words (which had names and meaning) and numbers, apart from just sounds. Name "glagolitic" is derived from 4th letter glagoli, meaning "speak/talk".

OK, so we have kind of contemporary "moral renewal" both on West (Charlemagne) and East (St. Brothers). Nevermind it's out of phase for some 2-3 centuries to our astronomical supernova (and the Great Schism) as recorded in official history.

I guess, if 'Constantine' was, back then, code for, or synonymous with, 'Charlemagne' - and that he actually ruled from northern Britain to Egypt (where such coins have been found). Otherwise, you have to posit tricksters going around leaving coins in the archaeological layers marked 'Flavius Valerius Constantinus'.

I was taken aback when found out that Cyril's real name was Constantine until 50 days before death in Rome 869 AD, so everybody knew him as Constantine, especially Slavic 'ordinary' people who were introduced to Christianity in their own native languages and learned to read and write through his missionary work.

The Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets are the oldest known Slavic alphabets, and were created by the two brothers and their students, to translate the Gospels and liturgical books into the Slavic languages. The early Glagolitic alphabet was used in Great Moravia between 863 (the arrival of Cyril and Methodius) and 885 (the expulsion of their students) for government and religious documents and books, and at the Great Moravian Academy (Veľkomoravské učilište) founded by Cyril, where followers of Cyril and Methodius were educated, by Methodius himself among others. The alphabet has been traditionally attributed to Cyril. That attribution has been confirmed explicitly by the papal letter Industriae tuae (880) approving the use of Old Church Slavonic, which says that the alphabet was "invented by Constantine the Philosopher". The term invention need not exclude the possibility of the brothers having made use of earlier letters, but implies only that before that time the Slavic languages had no distinct script of their own.

Methodius and Constantine were sons of highly ranked military officer and while Methodius became a monk rather early, leaving his birth name Mihael behind him, Constantine went as Byzantine diplomat to Samara (today Iraq, maybe Persia at the time?) first and then quit the service to retreat to monastery.
Heck, those are similarities shared among several Roman emperors around emperor Constantine's time and emperor Constantin himsel, and sort of a model for Diocletian's unheard of behavior in history too!

The name of the Byzantium city was Carigrad for Slavs since they appeared in 6th century AD in official history. It would probably stayed so until its end under Muslim boot and sword if not for Constantine/Cyril and his influence on people when city became known as Constantine's city, Constantinople. Written records can be altered and/or erased, but people remember and talk, that can't be erased so easily or maybe at all. Written word says he took name Cyril just before death when entering monastery, indicating nobody outside Church circles would have known about it, surely not people at the time who would still call him Constantine.

Then again, how come people know St. Brothers as Cyril and Methodius, if Cyril took his name 50 days before dying in Greek monastery when entering that same monastery in Rome? If Cyril really took his name in a manner described in official history, not one ordinary Slav at the time would have known whom we're speaking of when asked about Cyril.

And funny thing, very few people even know Cyril was originally named Constantine, we all on the Balkans now know them as Cyril and Methodius, St. Brothers.
If Constantine in reality took name Cyril long enough before dying to stick in people's ears, it means people would have known him by both names, coupling attributes of both Constantine and Cyril in one individual character.
Imagine, Constantine emperor who at first prosecuted Christians, maybe received Divine revelation and changed his colors embracing Christianity and becoming Cyril, now known among Slavs as St. Cyril.

Heck, this hypothetical guy could even be Diocletian and St. Paul in one person, and on top of it Charlemagne was said to be kind of that kind of a king/priest too!!

So, we could have emperor Constantine, Charlemagne and St. Cyril in one person. Now, now, now...
But, things got even more interesting.

Missionary journeys created circumstances leading to the Great Schism at the end and all the suffering that came with it, at least that's what official history tells us. When, less than century after St. Brothers according to official history, bogumili popped up in the middle of those areas where St. Brothers were missionaries, amount of suffering and bloodshed associated with St. Brothers in official history increased many-fold.

The success of St. Brothers in their missionary work was attributed to relics of St. Clement (clemency of Caesar?) which they carried from Crimea all the way back to Rome to pope Hadrian where Constantine, weak in health and strength, retreated to Greek monastery, became Cyril and died 50 days later. At least that's what official version says, written shortly after death of both St. Brothers [site only in Croatian].


On the other side, Crab Nebula plays a very important role in gamma astronomy today (maybe also radio?), standing for 'standard candle' to which all instruments are calibrated.
SN 1054 was visible for 21 month and then faded out, now our methods to 'see' its remainings/sarcophagus using other parts of e-m spectrum, radio on one end and gamma on the other, just happen to use SN 1054 as calibration source for their observations?

What did St. Brothers do/teach, especially Constantine, to ordinary people, Slavs in the Balkans specifically, that would require such a vast operation of rewriting history and consequently so huge cover-up including blinding us astronomically to that specific event in history? As if 2 years from astronomical history records at the time were erased, then a veil on our future 'eyes' was pulled over to an 'event' which official version wants us to believe was tearing of Christianity right through its middle/heart (image of a rose pierced by cross?).

Maybe the 'event' they want so desperately to hide and that they went to such extreme measures to erase it from history as to get the Arabs in the 'game', is exactly the 'event' missing from the records themselves, supernova? Erasing astronomical supernova from all available historical records at the time, do they themselves 'said' to us that religious/spiritual supernova in (history of) humanity already happened more or less a millennium ago and Millennial period is now over?

Maybe the idea behind forgery was to erase birth of a 'star' (St. Cyril and his missionary work) and replace it with death of 'star's' origin religion?

Anyway, does all this sound reasonable to you?

 

[Human]

Maybe the idea behind forgery was to erase birth of a 'star' (St. Cyril and his missionary work) and replace it with death of 'star's' origin religion?

One secure place in history line to hide a supernova that one can be sure of it wasn't detected at the time, would be when skies were such that nobody could see any stars. SN 1054 stood there in Taurus for 21 months, what kind of an 'event' could 'cloud' the skies for so long period? Well, vulcan eruption that lasted for at least 2y would do the job, for example that one from 540 AD.
Could a 'new star' in the skies be hidden in a single permutation from SN 1054 to 0541 AD which would also produce an additional time window of cca half of millennium before 540 AD, perfectly matched with astronomical records of time period between 0541 AD and 1054 AD?

 

[Niall]

Looks like it might be both - see below.

In terms of possible forgery:

From the Wikipedia of ‘The Arch of Constantine’:

Arch of Constantine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pg 91 of the document and pg 9 of the file on the website describes where this information on ‘restoration’ comes from:

Archaeological News on JSTOR

The pdf of the document that you can download does don’t download to this actual document, so I took a screen capture of the jstor and here is a picture of it:

View attachment 53196

Here is what Gardara published (not in English):

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma (46.1918)

From Peitro Bracci’s Wikipedia:

Pietro Bracci - Wikipedia



So there is evidence of changes that were made in the 1700’s that may lend itself to the possibility of forgery.

In terms of it being and older arch:

Again, from the from the Wikipedia of ‘The Arch of Constantine’:

​

From looking into the references in the above quote:

Who Built the Arch of Constantine?

Hardly anything might seem more audacious than to deny that the arch of Constantine was built in honor of that emperor; yet the really amazing thing is our failure to attend to the numerous hints that this arch had existed long before Constantine. Artists and archaeologists have always been...

books.google.com

​

Here is the actual book - Who Built the Arch of Constantine? Its History from Domitian to Constantine (Analecta Gorgiana): Arthur L. Frothingham: 9781607245278: Amazon.com: Books

Here is a PDF from the same author and the same subject - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.2307/497194

Where we read:



Here another book referenced in the Wikipedia entry - Amazon.com: The Arch of Constantine: Inspired by the Divine: 9781445601298: Ferris, Iain: Books

The Amazon blurb for the book:



From a review on amazon about the book:





Here is the reference 9, for “the controversy extends” - https://web.archive.org/web/20140124192300/http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/imagegallerywww/fab2bcd8-33c3-4d30-a266-ead051c8383b/ImageGallery/FramingtheSun.pdf

So it indeed looks like The Arch of Constantine could be an older arch.

What a DARN mess!

Good finds, Mike. It's plausible then that the Latin inscription was added much later to make it "Constantine's" arch.

But how do we solve the riddle of the coins?

They clearly show the head of an emperor, and are marked 'Constantinus', along with other coins from family members before and during his reign.

 

[Human]

But how do we solve the riddle of the coins?

Was there any one group before cca 1500 AD in official history that could disseminate the coins throughout the area you mentioned earlier, from northern Britain to Egypt?
Well, Templars come to mind.

Could St. Cyril be the Constantin/Charlemagne before 'seeing' the sign in the skies (SN 1054?) and then 'withdrawing' from the service (Diocletian's feature) to embark on his missionary journeys?
It seems to me that he could.

What would have happened to his soldiers after his 'retirement'? Could they have joined his 'holly mission' since he was their 'beloved' commander after all?
Well, I'd say it would be even likely for some/many of them to do so, maybe even forming original Templars at the time, which were later corrupted and exterminated together with any trace of bogumilism/catharism (remainings of St. Cyril's teachings?) from our history.

That would be one way to tackle 'coin riddle', don't you think?

 

[Mike]

But how do we solve the riddle of the coins?

I'm not sure exactly. Will be thinking about this and do some thinking and 'digging' around in the next week or so to see if anything comes to mind.

Things I'm going to dig into:
- any information on how to identify forgeries of Roman coins in terms of current day people trying to make and sell forgeries. And if there is any history and data related to forgery of Roman coins.
- any information of how many of these 'Constantine' and related coins there are, and if there is information on when and where they were discovered and by whom. Also, when the information about them was first published, etc.
- any information on when exactly any writings about Constantine were found and/or available to the public, and who discovered them and where, etc.
- any information on any busts, statues, and other art work of Constantine and related art, etc in terms of where, when, and by whom they were found, etc.

Figure, if this type of information is looked into and collected, something may start to stand out as all of the information is examined.

 

[Mike]

Will be thinking about this and do some thinking and 'digging' around in the next week or so to see if anything comes to mind.

Figure, if this type of information is looked into and collected, something may start to stand out as all of the information is examined.

Also, figure a dedicated thread could be created as information in collected, if others want to take part in the 'hunt' and post information, etc.

 

[Pierre]

Good finds, Mike. It's plausible then that the Latin inscription was added much later to make it "Constantine's" arch.

But how do we solve the riddle of the coins?

They clearly show the head of an emperor, and are marked 'Constantinus', along with other coins from family members before and during his reign.

What got my attention in the video, is the depiction of Remus and Romulus on one coin. Clearly, they are mythical figures which are supposed to having funded Rome ca. 800 BC. However the coin dates from Constantine (allegedly) ie. more 1000 years ago backdating.

Is there any analogy with Constantine: backdating and presenting a mythical figure as real?

Another is example is Jesus Christ which is depicted like a real character in a number of coins issued several centuries of its "death":
The Image of Jesus on Ancient Coins

 

[Human]

Thing that's been bothering me is the lack of SN 1054 record in Arabic world, only 1 refering to observation believed to be from Constantinople doesn't do the job considering state of their astronomy. It smells almost as if somebody wanted to put blame on Arabs if in the future some questions should arise about this issue.

In addition, doesn't story about their Prophet resemble in a way to our hypothetical Constantine/Charlemagne/St. Cyril character?

According to official version, St. Cyril, still as Constantine, went to Samara and then some years later all of a sudden retreated to the monastery, similarly like his brother Mihael did before Constantine's mission to Samara (Mihael took the name Methodius when entering the monastery). We're told that Constantine did not take new name (Cyril) at that time, but years later on his death bed practically when he retreated again to the monastery, but this time in Rome. Knowing religious practices, it would seem more likely that Constantine became Cyril when entering the monastery first time, like his brother did, than what official version wants us to believe, OSIT.

 

[Pierre]

figure a dedicated thread could be created as information in collected, if others want to take part in the 'hunt' and post information, etc.

I created a new title to this thread: "Were 460 years added to the official chronology?"

 

[Human]

Thing that's been bothering me is the lack of SN 1054 record in Arabic world, only 1 referring to observation believed to be from Constantinople doesn't do the job considering state of their astronomy. It smells almost as if somebody wanted to put blame on Arabs if in the future some questions should arise about this issue.

Like, if somebody would have noticed sometime afterwards something about similarities between Constantine and Charlemagne and possibly St. Martin and St. Cyril, which might seem, after taking a 'closer' look, that somebody might have pulled sort of 'Arab one-two' on us and our history: making 2 persons out of one in religious sense on the East (so we have St. Cyril and St. Methodius, St. Brothers) and moving secular part 'back' in history (Constantine the Great), and keeping 'secular' part on the West making sort of 2 characters out of 1 (Charlemagne) and 'moving back in timeline' religious part (St. Martin).

Finding above and seeing that the Arabs have their Prophet who had both these 'features' (secular and religious) blended together in his persona, but do not have 'any' record about SN 1054 (possibly the sign that 'converted' Constantine the Great) which they should have observed considering what we know about their state of astronomy, one could think that they did some 'manipulation' to 'hide true origins' of their Prophet and consequently Islam as a organized religion.

On the other hand, we're led to believe (official version) that bogumili were dangerous because they "rejected the ecclesiastical hierarchy" (among other things) which in itself would pose a problem for Islamic authorities as well. And funny 'fact' is that Islam 'entered' into Europe (from Byzantine 'door') up to exactly those regions where bogumili were said to have been residing (e.g. Bosnia).

 

[Nević Nenad]

That big stone head is made for a statue that was to be 20 meters high. Maybe that why it looks caricatural? The smaller depictions surely looks more real. In the oficial history, the last 3 centuries of Rome are already recognized as the first 3 centuries of Byzantine empire. And Iustinian already is known as the last real Roman and the first real Byzantine emperor.

Konstantinova glava i dalje u Beogradu

Rođen u Naisusu, prvi vladar koji je priznao hrišćanstvo - Car Konstantin umro je 337. godine, na današnji dan, a glava njegove statue pronađena je u Nišu pre 118 godina. Ipak, ona se nalazi u Beogradu, u trezoru Narodne banke. Niš nema uslova da je čuva, navodi direktor Narodnog muzeja u Nišu...

www.juznevesti.com

B92 - Internet, Radio i TV stanica - najnovije vesti iz Srbije i sveta

Najnovije vesti, najaktuelnije i najbrže informacije. Politika, društvo, biznis, sport, zdravlje, putovanja, automobili, IT... Čitajte B92.net.

blog.b92.net

 

[Human]

That big stone head is made for a statue that was to be 20 meters high. Maybe that why it looks caricatural? The smaller depictions surely looks more real. In the oficial history, the last 3 centuries of Rome are already recognized as the first 3 centuries of Byzantine empire. And Iustinian already is known as the last real Roman and the first real Byzantine emperor.

Konstantinova glava i dalje u Beogradu

Rođen u Naisusu, prvi vladar koji je priznao hrišćanstvo - Car Konstantin umro je 337. godine, na današnji dan, a glava njegove statue pronađena je u Nišu pre 118 godina. Ipak, ona se nalazi u Beogradu, u trezoru Narodne banke. Niš nema uslova da je čuva, navodi direktor Narodnog muzeja u Nišu...

www.juznevesti.com

B92 - Internet, Radio i TV stanica - najnovije vesti iz Srbije i sveta

Najnovije vesti, najaktuelnije i najbrže informacije. Politika, društvo, biznis, sport, zdravlje, putovanja, automobili, IT... Čitajte B92.net.

blog.b92.net

They say statue/head was found in 1900 in the walls of fortress bridge in Niš.
Do you know how did they 'know' it's Constantine the Great, i.e. how did they identify him?

 

[Mike]

Is there any analogy with Constantine: backdating and presenting a mythical figure as real?

Another is example is Jesus Christ which is depicted like a real character in a number of coins issued several centuries of its "death":
The Image of Jesus on Ancient Coins

I just got done doing EE and some other things and then just re-read this post.

What if Constantine is a mythical figure that is a stand-in, at least in part, for the real figure of Caesar, just like Jesus is the stand-in for Caesar. So you would have both Constantine and Jesus as a representation of Caesar.

I just read this short biography of Constantine - Constantine I

Nothing is exceptionally obvious that points to Constantine being a representation of Caesar, but these look to be similarities - a Civil War, Constantine in Britain, uniting of the empire after Civil War. I have not read too much about Constantine, so maybe there are a number of things that could be identified using comparative analysis.

Let's say Constantine is a representation of Caesar. To what purpose? Maybe there was a lot know about Caesar's life, doings, and even spiritual things that the people that were able to stay alive after cometary destruction knew about Caesar and celebrated. This is information that we don't have available now (so if 'Constantine is Caesar' has any validity, then the life of Constantine might give some information or at least an allusion to real information about Caesar's life that we don't have available now). A mythical Constantine could have been used as a figure to give legitimacy to the church and also be used to supplant and replace real information and memories of Caesar back then. In concert with the creation of the mythical figure of Constantine, TPTB would likely also try to get control of information about Caesar and suppress it and destroy it, such as anything written about him or any kind of celebration that identified and celebrated Caesar. Maybe that is the reason or some of the reason that 'Jesus is Caesar' didn't make it through history. Just some thoughts, fwiw.