Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

[Nostradamus]

I don't think I have a remote grasp in any of this, but there are red flags for "chronological dissonance" from the calculating concepts of time/chronology from the end of Justinian to Charlemagne. It may even have a more "Dorothy and Toto" aspect to it. If the C's are right about the "Earth's EM atmosphere" radically changing after the Justinian Plague/Comets where giants slowly died off and lost their efficacy for chasing us down in the woods of North America - maybe this even goes for how humans perceived chronology on a deeper psychological level that affected our day to day perceptions?

Thank you for this article which is very interesting and ties in with all the research being done to update the fraud of "the patristic tradition". It's also related to Laura's book I guess (I'm waiting for the English translation ). This notion of eyewitness (Richard Carrier's article) is relevant because when I study the old Greek and Byzantine chronicles, it makes me think of witnesses who lived and witnessed many events in a very short time span, a generalized chaos. One reads and studies these chronicles as if they were the account of a historian who tells the events of the past in a sequential mode over several centuries.

You are right, we must succeed in rebooting our software. I don't know if our perceptions of time changed at the end of antiquity. However, what is certain is that the invention of chronology during the Renaissance implanted a reinforced linearity in our programs and that it derails our good perception of this fraudulent past. We must make an effort to reread certain texts by putting aside our official chronology, and these associated subconscious programs, I am thinking in particular of "secondary texts" that may have been spared by the fraud or that have undergone minor adjustments without distorting the substance of the narrative.

 

[Nostradamus]

To come back to chronology itself, I think that we must reason by "segment" and reconstruct history in a more coherent context. The fabrication of chronology is an artifice that relies on a sequencing of emperors for the Roman Empire and monarchs for Europe.

At the moment, I have difficulty sorting out for Europe between the Merovingians and the Carolingians. I prefer not to make risky assumptions.

For the Roman Empire, it is therefore necessary to put the disorder in order. My hypothesis is the following, but I recognize that it may be bullshit. I have the impression that the Roman Empire corresponds to a seizure of power by the army, starting with Augustus, and that one must interpret this military organization as a chain of command with a system based on two Augustus (like the consulars), with two capitals, Rome and Byzantium, and with a set of emperors/generals placed under the authority of each Augustus. A tetrarchic system that is reminiscent of the founding myth of Rome, with Remus and Romulus. Thus, the Roman dynasty (Julio-Claudian) could have coexisted with the Flavian dynasty in Byzantium for example, Nero and Justinian for example. However, Rome was probably the political center, like today's Washington on New York.
Archaeology seems to show that the Roman Empire survived in the Balkans (reuse of materials, see the notion of "spolia") but also in enclaves (like Ravenna). This would explain why the Romanians claim since the Middle Ages that they are descendants of the Romans.

But this would also explain the struggle between the emperors and these unlikely battles within the same camp in this general chaos.

A group with Diocletian would have tried to restore the tetrarchic system. I have the impression that this segment (Late Antiquity) was inserted between Augustus and Justinian and that it actually corresponds to a post-apocalyptic world. Constantine (the second Flavians) came from this group that persecuted the "Christians" and he set up a new religion that made the emperor a god, or son of a god. It is a fact often ignored but in the Balkans there is another previous Constantinople: Constanstine of Osroen. This would explain, for example, why we find in Marcellin's chronicle, and in the same sentence, Byzantium and Constantinopolim. Byzantium was renamed Constantinople in a second time when the Roman elite was transferred to Byzantium.

At the time of the Roman Renaissance, the elite probably rewrote history by discarding the history of Byzantium (which was rediscovered very late), after having sacked Constantinople, and wrote a new narrative in order to promote the prestige of Rome. By writing a vertical rather than horizontal chronology, they wanted to ensure the precedence of the Roman emperors over their Greek namesakes. The narrative of a Roman Empire that collapsed shortly after its creation was a truth to be suppressed.

 

[iamthatis]

I admit that it is reassuring to feel less alone and less stupid in this infernal imbroglio.

Indeed, most of the copies of ancient texts were found in the abbeys of Europe, and mainly in the Carolingian area. This supposes at some point a "transfer" from south to north. One could imagine that this took place at the time of the crusades. Or not. But one can assume that the Christian persecution that appeared at the end of the Middle Ages (the Cathars, the Templars, the Bogomils...) is not unrelated to a fraudulent operation of the texts and therefore of our history.

At the same time, there seems to have been a "reset" of Western history for the period that concerns us. For example, nobody really knows when and by whom the cathedrals were built. You have a north-south movement: the evangelization of Europe by Irish monks. What historians call the mystery of Irish monasticism. In fact, it's only a mystery if you don't turn off the "Christianity" program. If these communities of monks were the descendants of the Druids, then you can look at the past in a new light and better understand why these monuments are covered with "pagan" symbols. I have the impression that the Essenes themselves in Egypt came from a common ancient tradition (see the Essenes in Greece as an intermediate step ?), which would explain that both early Christianity, Latin and Greek, have primitive elements in common and that they each underwent, at different times, a purification and fraud.

And then everything is mixed during the time of the Roman papacy. Christianity takes its definitive form after the trauma of the Black Death. The iconography of purgatory appears. The crucifixion of a suffering Jesus on the cross contrasts with the "solar" Jesus of the Middle Ages, in the heart of a mystical almond. It seems obvious that the "Christian cross" was brought by Scottish and Irish monks because it is in this area that the oldest Celtic crosses have been discovered in large numbers.

Moreover, while researching Constantine, I curiously discovered the illustrious dynasty of "Constantine of Scotland". Causantín I mac Uurguist officially dates from the 9th century. His Latinized name is "Custantin" as seen on the Dupplin cross. But at the same time you have Saint Constantine of Scotland, a legendary king and martyr in Scotland who is dated to the 6th century. All of this seems to be related, according to the legends, to Saint Columban and the Irish monks. And here are Irish monks, Celtic crosses and an illustrious king named Constantine. At this point, it's just speculation but I wonder if there wasn't a transfer from north to south, from this Scottish Constantine to the Roman Constantine. I think he existed given all the coins in his name with his new imperial religion "Sol Invictus".

I hope to share my cross-research on Constantine and Charlemagne and all that soon but I lack the time to translate and I also have a lot of doubts about my working hypotheses.

But I sincerely wanted to thank you all the team and all the members because this forum is the only space where I can share information. Very sincerely because the loneliness is sometimes painful.

I recently watched this video by Mike Baillie, author of Exodus to Arthur and Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology. He is a retired paleo-ecologist and dendrochronologists who has been writing about his working hypothesis of a cometary event in 540 AD, based on his decades-long work sampling tree rings of Irish bog-oaks.

His data ties into the history of the Church in the British Isles that you're describing. And, by the way, thank you kindly for your efforts! What a fascinating mess.

Anyways, Baillie focuses in on the period of what we used to call the '540 AD Event'... I'm not sure what to call it anymore.
There are two important screenshots to share. The first is a slide that summarizes in point-form what he found when looking into the records for historical accounts of the 540 AD Event. Of particular note is the 'History of the Popes', written in 1750.



Nothing happened worthy of notice! So from this we can conclude that, as late as '1750 AD', as we call it, some people were busy erasing data in their official records. This history was written by Archibald Bower, a Scottish historian known for his 'complicated and varying religious faith'. It's unclear whether he was the one who erased the 540 AD Events, or if someone else did it afterwards.

This above was followed by a very curious bit of data from Baillie's presentation. What happened in Ireland's religious landscape after the 540 AD Event?



Not bad for a year where 'nothing happened worthy of notice'... just a massive increase in the foundation of Irish Churches. Could this be the starting point of the 'Mystery of Irish Monasticism' that you allude to above?

I don't think that Churches popping up like mushrooms after an Irish rain would have occurred if there was still a strong Druidic influence in Ireland - would it? My uneducated guess is that these religions were in competition. So something happened to the Druids at around the time of this Event. Another alternative is that something was done to them.

 

[Nostradamus]

I recently watched this video by Mike Baillie, author of Exodus to Arthur and Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology. He is a retired paleo-ecologist and dendrochronologists who has been writing about his working hypothesis of a cometary event in 540 AD, based on his decades-long work sampling tree rings of Irish bog-oaks.

His data ties into the history of the Church in the British Isles that you're describing. And, by the way, thank you kindly for your efforts! What a fascinating mess.

Anyways, Baillie focuses in on the period of what we used to call the '540 AD Event'... I'm not sure what to call it anymore.
There are two important screenshots to share. The first is a slide that summarizes in point-form what he found when looking into the records for historical accounts of the 540 AD Event. Of particular note is the 'History of the Popes', written in 1750.

View attachment 54848

Nothing happened worthy of notice! So from this we can conclude that, as late as '1750 AD', as we call it, some people were busy erasing data in their official records. This history was written by Archibald Bower, a Scottish historian known for his 'complicated and varying religious faith'. It's unclear whether he was the one who erased the 540 AD Events, or if someone else did it afterwards.

This above was followed by a very curious bit of data from Baillie's presentation. What happened in Ireland's religious landscape after the 540 AD Event?

View attachment 54849

Not bad for a year where 'nothing happened worthy of notice'... just a massive increase in the foundation of Irish Churches. Could this be the starting point of the 'Mystery of Irish Monasticism' that you allude to above?

I don't think that Churches popping up like mushrooms after an Irish rain would have occurred if there was still a strong Druidic influence in Ireland - would it? My uneducated guess is that these religions were in competition. So something happened to the Druids at around the time of this Event. Another alternative is that something was done to them.

But is the dating of these Irish churches correct? It seems suspicious to me.

In any case, the same phenomenon occurs throughout Europe in the early Middle Ages with the construction of churches and abbeys at an incredible frequency! We observe a new architectural style, breaking with the Roman world, and standard architecture common to all of Western Europe. This makes me think more of a new religious movement or more broadly a new civilizational dynamic that seems to unite all the Celts of the West.

What is valid for the druids of Ireland must also be valid for all the other Celtic peoples, there is no transition. It is a moment of rupture for all the people, an evolutionary leap, a period of renewal which is built like an antithesis of the Roman world.
But why did communities of Irish monks like St. Columban come to settle in Northern France? Did they flee a persecution that was taking place in their country? Maybe you are right and there is something I am missing at the moment.

 

[Voyageur]

The following is a couple of months old, which was bookmarked and quickly reviewed. The hosts of the talk were Cynthia Chung and Matt Ehret, and the the focus is on India; about chronologies, and revisionism and more. The talk is with Dr. Raj Vedam, and here is the brief:

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, Dr Raj Vedam introduces a multi parameter analysis of ancient Indian civilization by incorporating archeology, archeo-genetics, linguistics, archeo-astronomy, mathematics, engineering, architecture and literary analysis with one aim: Prove definitively that Indian culture is both much older than “Aryan invasion” devotees would have the world believe. In opposition to the generations of imperialists who have attempted to impose models which obscure this fact, Dr. Vedam demonstrates that rather than being a sink, ancient Indian civilization is actually the source of many of the greatest revolutions in science, mathematics, philosophy, medicine and much more.

Ancient India and the Vedas: The Untold Story

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, Dr Raj Vedam introduces a multi parameter analysis of ancient Indian civilization by incorporating archeology, archeo-genetics, linguistics, archeo-astronomy…

risingtidefoundation.net

The talk is engaging from the perspective of facts, theory and data points. There is a great deal in this talk, spanning back beyond the last ice age, with crossover points to many things discussed on the forum - and this thread, with the unpacking of historical timelines

Dr. Vedam also spends time on the British, how they set up the idea of a caste, when Indian history says otherwise (a foreign word he said) - he maps out how and where the British were meddling (a great deal all over and interconnected), and the troubling arm-wrestling between archeologists and historians, with the latter holding sway as often is the case. Of course, this clouded historical lens has far reaching ramifications within our education system today, yet nothing new here.

Missing years comes up, and a very interesting discussion on language, and then genetics (this may not be exactly a correct path - difficult to know) is mapped out; the official out of Africa theory visualized vs. other (Out of Australia is not represented). Even ancient Copper extracted from the Great Lakes area (99% pure without arsenic), at one point was brought up in question period, which may have links of use in India. Astronomy is well factored in the talk, as well as a reference to a downloadable Astronomy program (called Stellarium (one program option sees "constellations for 40+ different cultures") - open source), which Vedam used in what he presented on astronomy during his talk - adapted to cultures in time to what they see and the commonalities and myths.

The talk is around 2 hours, with questions and answers another 1.5 hours (so you need to devote some listening time as interested).

Ancient India and the Vedas: The Untold Story

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, Dr Raj Vedam introduces a multi parameter analysis of ancient Indian civilization by incorporating archeology, archeo-genetics, linguistics, archeo-astronomy…

risingtidefoundation.net

Here is a screen shot summary after the first 2 hours:

British related:

 

[Jtucker]

The following is a couple of months old, which was bookmarked and quickly reviewed. The hosts of the talk were Cynthia Chung and Matt Ehret, and the the focus is on India; about chronologies, and revisionism and more. The talk is with Dr. Raj Vedam, and here is the brief:

Ancient India and the Vedas: The Untold Story

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, Dr Raj Vedam introduces a multi parameter analysis of ancient Indian civilization by incorporating archeology, archeo-genetics, linguistics, archeo-astronomy…

risingtidefoundation.net

The talk is engaging from the perspective of facts, theory and data points. There is a great deal in this talk, spanning back beyond the last ice age, with crossover points to many things discussed on the forum - and this thread, with the unpacking of historical timelines

Dr. Vedam also spends time on the British, how they set up the idea of a caste, when Indian history says otherwise (a foreign word he said) - he maps out how and where the British were meddling (a great deal all over and interconnected), and the troubling arm-wrestling between archeologists and historians, with the latter holding sway as often is the case. Of course, this clouded historical lens has far reaching ramifications within our education system today, yet nothing new here.

Missing years comes up, and a very interesting discussion on language, and then genetics (this may not be exactly a correct path - difficult to know) is mapped out; the official out of Africa theory visualized vs. other (Out of Australia is not represented). Even ancient Copper extracted from the Great Lakes area (99% pure without arsenic), at one point was brought up in question period, which may have links of use in India. Astronomy is well factored in the talk, as well as a reference to a downloadable Astronomy program (called Stellarium (one program option sees "constellations for 40+ different cultures") - open source), which Vedam used in what he presented on astronomy during his talk - View attachment 59181adapted to cultures in time to what they see and the commonalities and myths.

The talk is around 2 hours, with questions and answers another 1.5 hours (so you need to devote some listening time as interested).

Ancient India and the Vedas: The Untold Story

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, Dr Raj Vedam introduces a multi parameter analysis of ancient Indian civilization by incorporating archeology, archeo-genetics, linguistics, archeo-astronomy…

risingtidefoundation.net

Here is a screen shot summary after the first 2 hours:

British related:

View attachment 59183

 

[Jtucker]

I think something the C's mentioned on the 06/24/22 session might add some light onto this thread.

Regarding both time machine use and a fascinating concept they coined - Negative Impact Cascades.

From the session:

A: Not many. STS uses tech to control and manipulate, but each use causes negative impact cascades.

(Ark) Is there just one main history that you can view, or there are many alternative histories?

A: Latter.

And later in response to Ark's personal question:

A: You are here now as the result of following specific branching events that manifest as a result of choices.

I've read through most of the time travel comments on the 06/24/22 session, and didn't see anything along this line in the thread, but if I did please add anything I missed.

I think both Ark's questions and the C's responses are important perspectives on this thread (probably as well as many others).

So in general, if I am to read the C's right, messing around with time lines and "probable" histories is something 4D STS can do. But I think it's entropic. The natural flow of creativity is the basis of the universal system. Messing with it may give a specific outcome for one event that's feared by the 4D STS as a threat. But it has Negative Impact Cascades.

If I was to imagine that - it would mean that the original manipulation - causes the exact opposite result 4D STS wants. Wishful thinking and all...

Here's my very simplistic interpretation of it.

Slavery in the 1800's feeds the STS, Lincoln comes around and ends it. They go back and kill Lincoln, so they get Jim Crow - which is second best in their books. But Jim Crow creates Malcolm X, MLK and the Kennedy's. So they go back and kill them. But killing them, inspires Wikileaks, Laura and a whole host of "revelears" due to the Internet connectivity. Maybe these assassinations from the 60's even inspire Putin to see a bigger picture beyond Russian history - as he seemed to be more focused on in the late-90's. You now have "Caesar's" army against the STS forces in 3D. Maybe it would have been better to just let Lincoln's carpet bagger's fail?

So now the whole deal is completely blown up by Negative Impact Cascades. Their plan became entropic against them. Who knows what those timelines are in other probabilities, but it's possible to theorize their actions sabotaged themselves. I'm not trying to debate American history right or wrong here - just a potential example. I think sometimes (myself included) everyone can get wrapped up in interpretations of events - rather than just accepting the event and its effects. Trying to be a little more 4D - and let it roll with awareness only

As for the response the C's made to Ark:

A: You are here now as the result of following specific branching events that manifest as a result of choices.

IMHO - this is a very Zoroastrian-like response. I think it emphasizes personal accountability above all. If when Laura asked the C's if the Six Bounteous Immortals (the explanations for what they are is in that thread) are an approximation of 6th density, then this response backs it up.

Ultimately - Free Will. And I would add with intent. And moral intent. The 90's sessions when Ark is moving from Poland to Florida show this. He's challenged by the C's many times about his assumptions (culturally and academically). At any point he could have made the choice to take a safer and more professionally acceptable route to protect his "previous" self. He chose not too.

And personally, thanks for not choosing that "safer" road, Ark

But as with the baseball hat multiplying itself and our discussions on this thread whether there are probable histories that show up in the ground or in a book, I'm thinking there have to be.

We can trace Gregory of Tours and the Carolingians on a relatively straight line to ourselves through research. But I think like in the session where Laura asked the C's about the Bell Witch - electromagnetic instability takes time to re-stabilize after an big cosmic/earth event - that leading to bleed throughs. So if something like the New Madrid Earthquake destabilized/broke the curtain of 3D reality for decades in Missouri/Tennessee/Kentucky/Arkansas, then the cataclysm of Justinian could have done much worse.

Possibly then the whole timeline before 530 AD may be juxtaposed before and after on the basis that a huge EM disruption happened. Maybe this is even what the C's have talked about so many times with "Unstable Gravity Waves".

The "one" history can't exist. It has to be multiple. Sort of like the uncertainty principle where the observer affects the electron spin. The farther you go back - the less "stable" it is. I can see my Great Grandmother's face in my memory and I knew a lot of her history. Her Great grandmother is a birth certificate and a death certificate in a county in Ontario. I don't know here life. I can guess and do research, but it probably could be very different.

So we have no real history of these Dark Age Saints and their apparent history created by Bede or Gregory of Tours - because we have no records that are convincing. But possibly they have another reality beside us, until there's enough critical mass of understanding that Caesar is the basis for the whole religion? Then are they real anymore?

Events dovetail back again and that world of Caesar becomes visible and undeniable by real world events. Or does Saint Cuthbert come back announcing his mission through the mists of the moors?

I guess it always comes back to Paul. Where we have eyes to see, mouths to speak, and ears to hear - but it's both cosmic and individual. The Interface.

Try talking about this to your old friends at the bar - blank stares.

I do believe that there is a lot more investigation along these lines of the messed-up timeline that will bear fruit. Chronology and its "invention" is important. It's just really tough to get it coherent without being able to read a bunch of different languages and knowing original source material.

But I always tell myself - it's The Work that matters - not the result

 

[Myeong In]

First of all lets look at some answers from Cs related to the issue

12th July 2014

(Perceval) Is the time scale that we have for the kind of Dark Ages, fall of Rome, is that more or less correct...?

(L) What do you mean? You mean is our time line...

(Perceval) In terms of our timeline, from the fall of Rome back to Caesar's death... from the cosmic disaster, those 500 years or whatever it is...

A: There were years added so often that it will take some hard work to sort it out!
[...]
(Pierre) Maybe you can ask this question. Caesar was born roughly 2,114 years ago according to our official calendars. In reality, how many years ago was Caesar born?

A: 1635. {Difference of 479 years}

Q: [General oo-ing and ah-ing] (Perceval) The whole thing went so horribly wrong, we were thinking how did it last another 400 or 500 years?

(L) It didn't.

(Perceval) Yeah, it didn't. It lasted maybe 100.

(Pierre) Or, there was a collapse in 400 or 500 AD, and most of the added chunks are between 400-500 AD, and 1000 AD, as Fomenko suggests.

A: Check the artifacts. In some cases there were multiple "emperors" at the same time rather than sequential.

Q: (L) And there are even some alleged emperors who have no artifacts. They're just written down in the Historia Augusta, but nobody has ever found a single coin to attest to their existence!

18th Sept 2021

Q: (Pierre) In a previous session you mentioned about 470 years added between us and Julius Caesar. If it matches, it means these 470 years were added before 536 AD?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) It means Caesar died about 70 years before this 536 event?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) Wow. It means there's no late or middle Roman Empire!

A: Yes

30th Oct 2021

(Mexican House) Who was the last Roman Emperor before the fall of the empire?

(Pierre) Justinian?

(L) Probably. Was it Justinian?

A: Yes

27th Aug 2022

(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.

to summarize, Cs suggest that

• there are phantom years between AD536 and the death of Caesar
• the birth of Caesar would be AD 379 (2014 - 1635 = 379)
• Justinian is the last Emperor of Roman Empire
• artifacts may show signs
• the imaginary history is made before or after the AD 536 event
• the imaginary history composites of two chunks.

If it is true, we may make the following deductions

1. Caesar died in AD 434. Roughly 102 years before AD 536 event
2. there should be 102 years of true history + 377 years of imaginary history before AD 536

Implications:

• Julian calendar was implemented in AD 432. ( vs 44BC in official history )

Maybe that can explain the adjustment for the Gregorian calendar is only 10 days. You can see the day difference between Gregorian calendar and Julian calendar will be 1 day in 300 to 500 AD while 2 days in BC100 to AD 100.

Year	Julian date	Gregorian date	Difference
−200	March 4	March 1	−3
−100	March 1	February 27	−3
−100	March 2	February 28
−100	March 3	March 1	−2
100​	February 29	February 27	−2
100​	March 1	February 28
100​	March 2	March 1	−1
200​	February 28	February 27	−1
200​	February 29	February 28
200​	March 1	March 1	0
300​	February 28	February 28	0
300​	February 29	March 1
300​	March 1	March 2	1
500​	February 28	March 1	1
500​	February 29	March 2
500​	March 1	March 3	2
600​	February 28	March 2	2
600​	February 29	March 3
600​	March 1	March 4	3
700​	February 28	March 3	3

(wiki :Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars)

• Roman took over Syria after AD 414 (the campaign of Pompey in 65BC)

There was an attempt for Chinese to reach Roman Republic in AD 97. Quote from wiki, Daqin 大秦 (which is believed to be ancient Chinese name for Roman Empire):

China never managed to reach the Roman Empire directly in antiquity, although general Ban Chao sent Gan Ying as an envoy to "Daqin" in 97 AD. Gan Ying did not reach Daqin: he stopped at the coast of a large sea, because "sailor(s) of the Parthian west border" told him that the voyage to cross the sea might take a long time and be dangerous. Gan Ying left a detailed account of the Roman Empire, but it is generally considered to have been based on second-hand information from Parthians.

The eastern Mediterranean was part of Roman Empire since BC 40 according to official timeline. It is impossible for Chinese not to reach the Roman Empire when they arrived the coast of Mediterranean unless the sea is not referring to Mediterranean.

If we accept the suggestion from Cs, the scenario will make more sense because Roman was not in Eastern coast of Mediterranean in AD97 so the Chinese have to sail to find Roman.

Then it raises a question that if the history before Caesar should be re-dated 479 years forward compare to the official history. In more specific way, did Roman Republic found in 30 BC rather than 509 BC? Also, does the adjustment apply to ancient Greece which the Roman had interaction with? If that is the case the ancient history of Central Asia and even the dating of Asoka have to be rewritten because of the re-datig of the Alxendar the great and his campaign.

Problem of 479 years before the AD536 event

Another problem is how to filter out the imaginary history and the "true" history between Ceasar and Justinian. there should be 102 years of true history + 377 years of imaginary history before AD 536.

We have coins problem. it seems we can find coins corresponding to most of the late Roman Emperors. There is an interesting passage from wiki:

Every new emperor, either legal or illegal, marked the beginning of his rule by minting new coins, both to have the prestige of declaring oneself as Augustus and to pay the loyal soldiers their share. Thus, coinage is often the only evidence of a determined usurpation, but the number of coin types with the effigy of a usurper might not be equal to the total number of usurpations. The presence of minting facilities certainly allowed short-term usurpers to release their coinage, but on the other hand, a man capable of sustaining a rebellion for a couple of months in a remote area might fail to produce his own coins by lack of access to the instruments of minting technology.

There is also a questionable record which provides the only continuous account in Latin for the period between 117 and 284 AD according to wiki. However we have ruins or buildings attributed to the emperors of that period.

Emperor	regin (AD)	Buildings/ruins
Vespasian	69 to 79	Colosseum
Domitian	81 to 96	Arch of Titus
Hadrian	117 to 138	Hadrian wall
Antoninus Pius	138 to 161	Antonine wall
Septimius Severus	193 to 211	Pantheon
Caracalla	198 to 217	Baths of Caracalla Pantheon
Severus Alexander	222 to 235	Aqua Alexandrina
Gordian III Philip the Arab Valerian	238 to 244 244 to 249 253 to 260	(Sasanian king) Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht
Aurelian	270 to 275	Aurelian Walls
Maxentius	306 to 312	Circus of Maxentius
Maxentius Constantine	built in AD 308 by Maxentius and completed by Constantine in 312	Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine (where the colossal statue of Constantine is found)

I tried to postulate the history follow by the death of Ceasar until Vespasian (reign 69 to 79 AD) to be the "real" history. Then I find the following comment from the recent session (22th Aug 2022)

(Ryan) Was the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus alive at the time of the cometary event of 536-540 CE?

A: No

Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 120AD) is said to request his friend Pliny the Younger(61- 113 AD) to give first handed description of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79 . If we adjusted his date of birth using the figure 479, then he should be living from 535 to 599AD. The commet from Cs indicates either he died before or was born after the 536 AD event.

To Conculde

if Cs is correct, 100 years follow by the death of Caesar is quite a mess and mystery.

1. How is it possible to have so many emperors within 100 years ?
2. How is Justinian regarded as the last emperor and end up in Constantinople where the famous Hagia Sophia is attributed to him?

Maybe some local authorities miscounted as emperors while some did self proclaim to be an emperor, for example Palmyrene Empire in 270 AD. Maybe some of the emperors are pure imaginary. I get the impression that the construction of early Christian history messes up the history after Caesar.

Misarrangment of the emperors togethers with fake emperors and events inflat 100 years into 480 years. After investing the Chinese records, I also realize that the adjustment of the Roman history may also lead to readjustment of regional histories.

 

[Jtucker]

I recently watched this video by Mike Baillie, author of Exodus to Arthur and Celtic Gods: Comets in Irish Mythology. He is a retired paleo-ecologist and dendrochronologists who has been writing about his working hypothesis of a cometary event in 540 AD, based on his decades-long work sampling tree rings of Irish bog-oaks.

His data ties into the history of the Church in the British Isles that you're describing. And, by the way, thank you kindly for your efforts! What a fascinating mess.

Anyways, Baillie focuses in on the period of what we used to call the '540 AD Event'... I'm not sure what to call it anymore.
There are two important screenshots to share. The first is a slide that summarizes in point-form what he found when looking into the records for historical accounts of the 540 AD Event. Of particular note is the 'History of the Popes', written in 1750.

View attachment 54848

Nothing happened worthy of notice! So from this we can conclude that, as late as '1750 AD', as we call it, some people were busy erasing data in their official records. This history was written by Archibald Bower, a Scottish historian known for his 'complicated and varying religious faith'. It's unclear whether he was the one who erased the 540 AD Events, or if someone else did it afterwards.

This above was followed by a very curious bit of data from Baillie's presentation. What happened in Ireland's religious landscape after the 540 AD Event?

View attachment 54849

Not bad for a year where 'nothing happened worthy of notice'... just a massive increase in the foundation of Irish Churches. Could this be the starting point of the 'Mystery of Irish Monasticism' that you allude to above?

I don't think that Churches popping up like mushrooms after an Irish rain would have occurred if there was still a strong Druidic influence in Ireland - would it? My uneducated guess is that these religions were in competition. So something happened to the Druids at around the time of this Event. Another alternative is that something was done to them.

The rise of Irish Monasticism/Celtic Christianity at this early Dark Age period is something that's been nagging at me for a long time. In University I read Nikolai Tolstoi's, The Quest for Merlin. In it, he focuses (among other things) on on two texts that point to some sort of defining war between paganism and Christianity taking place in the 6th century in Cambria Northwest England. The source texts he refers to are The Battle of Arderydd and a very vivid lamenting poem called, Anffallennau.

The battle takes place between a Christian king (Rhyderrech) and the last great pagan king (Gwenddoulau) . Merlin (or the last Merlin - Tolstoi sees it as an office or title in charge of a precinct) fights with the pagans but is defeated. I can't find anything online to quote Anffallennau - but the Battle of Arederydd is well-known. The Wiki breakdown of it is probably accurate, but leaves out much of the deep dive in context that Tolstoi attempted.

After re-reading sections of it (Tolstoi quotes the texts directly over and over again), and following this thread, neither of those texts read like a Gregory of Tours or Bede gang wrote them. They definitely feel like they are after the fall of the Romans (which is stated in the texts), but long before the Bede world (none of the pompous nonsense related by from Bede or Nennius is even conceivable in these texts.)

Both the chronicle of the battle and the lamenting poem both emphasize the end of the old (pagan) world. the battle is the final last stand of the "magical/druid" world. It's failure causes mass misery for the losing side. The narrative is definitely describing a catastrophic loss. But there is also this apocalypse/death of the pagan world being recounted. Somehow the pagans are even more dramatic than the Christians in this regard (or that's just Celts in general

In my opinion, I would say that both these texts point to exactly the struggle that resulted in Baillie finding in the church building binge afterwards.

I was always drawn to the early Irish/Welsh/Brythonic texts for their unusual language and concepts. After reviewing this thread, I'd day they do not read like medieval re-purposings, but may actually capture source writings from 500-650AD.

I'm not sure if there's another thread here on them - but some of of the most interesting are:

The Black Book of Carmarthen
The Red Book of Hergest
Math ab Mathonwy
The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesen

 

[Jtucker]

First of all lets look at some answers from Cs related to the issue

12th July 2014

18th Sept 2021


30th Oct 2021


27th Aug 2022


to summarize, Cs suggest that

• there are phantom years between AD536 and the death of Caesar
• the birth of Caesar would be AD 379 (2014 - 1635 = 379)
• Justinian is the last Emperor of Roman Empire
• artifacts may show signs
• the imaginary history is made before or after the AD 536 event
• the imaginary history composites of two chunks.

If it is true, we may make the following deductions

1. Caesar died in AD 434. Roughly 102 years before AD 536 event
2. there should be 102 years of true history + 377 years of imaginary history before AD 536

Implications:

• Julian calendar was implemented in AD 432. ( vs 44BC in official history )

Maybe that can explain the adjustment for the Gregorian calendar is only 10 days. You can see the day difference between Gregorian calendar and Julian calendar will be 1 day in 300 to 500 AD while 2 days in BC100 to AD 100.

Year	Julian date	Gregorian date	Difference
−200	March 4	March 1	−3
−100	March 1	February 27	−3
−100	March 2	February 28
−100	March 3	March 1	−2
100​	February 29	February 27	−2
100​	March 1	February 28
100​	March 2	March 1	−1
200​	February 28	February 27	−1
200​	February 29	February 28
200​	March 1	March 1	0
300​	February 28	February 28	0
300​	February 29	March 1
300​	March 1	March 2	1
500​	February 28	March 1	1
500​	February 29	March 2
500​	March 1	March 3	2
600​	February 28	March 2	2
600​	February 29	March 3
600​	March 1	March 4	3
700​	February 28	March 3	3

(wiki :Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars)

• Roman took over Syria after AD 414 (the campaign of Pompey in 65BC)

There was an attempt for Chinese to reach Roman Republic in AD 97. Quote from wiki, Daqin 大秦 (which is believed to be ancient Chinese name for Roman Empire):

The eastern Mediterranean was part of Roman Empire since BC 40 according to official timeline. It is impossible for Chinese not to reach the Roman Empire when they arrived the coast of Mediterranean unless the sea is not referring to Mediterranean.

If we accept the suggestion from Cs, the scenario will make more sense because Roman was not in Eastern coast of Mediterranean in AD97 so the Chinese have to sail to find Roman.

Then it raises a question that if the history before Caesar should be re-dated 479 years forward compare to the official history. In more specific way, did Roman Republic found in 30 BC rather than 509 BC? Also, does the adjustment apply to ancient Greece which the Roman had interaction with? If that is the case the ancient history of Central Asia and even the dating of Asoka have to be rewritten because of the re-datig of the Alxendar the great and his campaign.

Problem of 479 years before the AD536 event

Another problem is how to filter out the imaginary history and the "true" history between Ceasar and Justinian. there should be 102 years of true history + 377 years of imaginary history before AD 536.

We have coins problem. it seems we can find coins corresponding to most of the late Roman Emperors. There is an interesting passage from wiki:


There is also a questionable record which provides the only continuous account in Latin for the period between 117 and 284 AD according to wiki. However we have ruins or buildings attributed to the emperors of that period.

Emperor	regin (AD)	Buildings/ruins
Vespasian	69 to 79	Colosseum
Domitian	81 to 96	Arch of Titus
Hadrian	117 to 138	Hadrian wall
Antoninus Pius	138 to 161	Antonine wall
Septimius Severus	193 to 211	Pantheon
Caracalla	198 to 217	Baths of Caracalla Pantheon
Severus Alexander	222 to 235	Aqua Alexandrina
Gordian III Philip the Arab Valerian	238 to 244 244 to 249 253 to 260	(Sasanian king) Shapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht
Aurelian	270 to 275	Aurelian Walls
Maxentius	306 to 312	Circus of Maxentius
Maxentius Constantine	built in AD 308 by Maxentius and completed by Constantine in 312	Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine (where the colossal statue of Constantine is found)

I tried to postulate the history follow by the death of Ceasar until Vespasian (reign 69 to 79 AD) to be the "real" history. Then I find the following comment from the recent session (22th Aug 2022)


Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 120AD) is said to request his friend Pliny the Younger(61- 113 AD) to give first handed description of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79 . If we adjusted his date of birth using the figure 479, then he should be living from 535 to 599AD. The commet from Cs indicates either he died before or was born after the 536 AD event.

To Conculde

if Cs is correct, 100 years follow by the death of Caesar is quite a mess and mystery.

1. How is it possible to have so many emperors within 100 years ?
2. How is Justinian regarded as the last emperor and end up in Constantinople where the famous Hagia Sophia is attributed to him?

Maybe some local authorities miscounted as emperors while some did self proclaim to be an emperor, for example Palmyrene Empire in 270 AD. Maybe some of the emperors are pure imaginary. I get the impression that the construction of early Christian history messes up the history after Caesar.

Misarrangment of the emperors togethers with fake emperors and events inflat 100 years into 480 years. After investing the Chinese records, I also realize that the adjustment of the Roman history may also lead to readjustment of regional histories.

It is confusing. And thanks for putting all of the info together in a timeline like that. It highlights the holes we're trying to fill, and how big they are. When you wrote the below:

Then it raises a question that if the history before Caesar should be re-dated 479 years forward compare to the official history. In more specific way, did Roman Republic found in 30 BC rather than 509 BC? Also, does the adjustment apply to ancient Greece which the Roman had interaction with? If that is the case the ancient history of Central Asia and even the dating of Asoka have to be rewritten because of the re-datig of the Alxendar the great and his campaign.

This is exactly the complexity of issues that arise when we try to re-construct the ancient world.

In my opinion, if I was to answer your question above, our modern chronology is not going to reconcile ancient chronology perfectly. We can get close. But that world based their "counting" on completely different concepts other than just the solar year or reigns of leaders. Also, a disreputable leader, could have their entire reign erased by the next leader, and re-stored by another centuries later in a different timeline for political purposes. To use your example, "Alexander The Great" is a hero of western culture but is known as "Alexander the Accursed" by Persians. Alexander's own actions and words definitely make him "accursed" towards the Achaeminids.

I would say that when you look at the volume of Roman History that still exists from Augustus backwards, it is probably much more accurate than everything from Augustus to Justinian. The quality of the written texts, the art discovered in situ, and the archaeology all show that the Roman Republic was centuries in the making. It has direct influences from Greeks and Etruscans. I don't think that's a fabrication. Nor would any of that matter to the people we're putting on trial for medieval falsification. The point they needed to make was to create the legitimiacy of the Holy Roman Empire and the hegemony of Christendom - they didn't care, nor could probably understand the more complex nuances of the ancient world.

The post-Caesar Empire is the dying of the ancient world. A snapshot of accelerating entropy - at least as far as we've dug out here. I think we're just dealing on this thread with a specific period of western (and to a certain extent near-eastern) history from Caesar's death to Justinian and the re-writing of that period and the one following by most likely 8-10th century British and Frankish historian/theologians amplified in the European Renaissance.

That's not to say other periods in other areas of the world weren't rewritten as well, but this is the period we're able to access a lot of texts that may point us in the right direction.

I'm guessing you're able to read Mandarin and/or Cantonese by your mention of a record stating that a delegation was sent out from the Imperial Chinese court in 97AD to meet with the Romans? As the C's have said - the Ancient world was very connected. So I have no doubt that both the east and west were aware of each other to some extent.

I guess the big question then is, how are Chinese chronologies synced with western timelines? I know there was somewhat of corresponding Chinese "Dark Age" following the Disaster of Yongjia which almost corresponds with the Plague of Justinian and the European migrations. Following that, the Sui Dynasty is building the largest water diversion projects ever known until the 20th century. So something was going on in China that was momentous.

China clearly had an independent chronology for thousands of years, completely independent of the west. At what point do all the different nations start synchronizing their years? I would guess not before 1850 and not after 1950.

There link has got to be comets. I think The C's pointed to that years ago. If there's a similar comet description in an Asian record that matches with a European record followed by a related climate event, we may be able to sync up more records. Hopefully

 

[seek10]

China clearly had an independent chronology for thousands of years, completely independent of the west. At what point do all the different nations start synchronizing their years? I would guess not before 1850 and not after 1950.

w.r.t China, 1850 makes sense. I think it is during colonial period the "need" to reconcile the histories of different nations became inevitable. It may be in works for few centuries as European nations compete with each other to colonize the rest and validate their theories ( linguistic, cultural, racial, religious and so on) of origins.

 

[Myeong In]

One thing I pay attention to when reviewing history is art. I have never been able to figure out how the art of the Roman Empire went through the changes that would have been necessary to create the images of Constantine that we find. They are almost like cartoons.

Look at the images here: Roman art - Wikipedia

And then look at the head of Constantine here:

Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

statue becomes less realistic since the crisis of 3rd century
coin complexities drop after 4th century

with Roman coins, decline in terms of style is first noticed during the Tetrarchs and continues with the Constantinians and accelerates during 5th century (from comment)

 

[Myeong In]

Here we go, more emperor

 

[Voyageur]

Here is the article to go with the clip:

Roman coin reveals long-lost Roman emperor -- Sott.net

A ROMAN COIN, PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE A FORGERY, HAS NOW BEEN AUTHENTICATED AND DEPICTS A LONG-LOST ROMAN EMPEROR. A study led by the University College London (UCL) was researching a coin housed at The Hunterian collection at the University of...

www.sott.net

 

[Ryan]

Here is the article to go with the clip:

Lead author Professor Paul N. Pearson (UCL Earth Sciences) said: "Scientific analysis of these ultra-rare coins rescues the emperor Sponsian from obscurity. Our evidence suggests he ruled Roman Dacia, an isolated gold mining outpost, at a time when the empire was beset by civil wars and the borderlands were overrun by plundering invaders."

LOL. So any local officer of some far-flung area can mint a few coins and all of a sudden he's an emperor! Another data point that there seems to be a certain bias (dare I say, even an agenda) among academics to try to 'discover' as many Roman 'emperors' as possible.