Now, before one scoffs at this radical historical view, let us examine this new scientific data and review just how the conventional timeline of Western History could have been "established" by certain influential historians and publishers nearly five centuries ago during the early Renaissance.
First, let me say that this data was discovered by accident while attempting to date Plato's story of when the Atlantean civilization existed. Although most historians have always believed that Atlantis was only a fictional story about a lost civilization, I felt the story was based on more fact than fiction.
Second, by looking very hard at the religious and governmental timeline eras that makeup the conventional timeline of Western History, I stumbled across just how the events from these time eras could have been compiled and "officially packaged" during the early Renaissance by important publishers who had the printing power to establish a formal record of Western History.
And third, it should be understood that the following timeline views are based on a new annual understanding of Biblical, Greco-Roman and Medieval era events. The annual accountability of historical events from the last five centuries is not in question because too many original documents exist that verify the annual count between events.
Moreover, by dividing all dated Indo-European historical events from before the early Renaissance into these three primary timeline eras, we should start to see how historians once long ago could have also "partition history" in an attempt to make sense of the data available. The dated events of the Far East and New World cultures are not included in these three primary timeline eras because their ancient histories could have been "compromised" during the European colonization of these areas over the last five centuries.
Although this essay is a oversimplification of a very complex subject, I will try to keep to the basic views as to how and when the conventional timeline of Western History was "annually buffered" and established in print during the early Renaissance. I should also ask those modern historians who are reading this essay to suspend their conclusive beliefs regarding "known" event dates from before the Renaissance long enough to understand a new way of seeing the annual foundation of Western History.
To better understand these misunderstood timeline eras, a simple overview of the age in which they were compiled should be reviewed. First, the early Renaissance was a time when many important historical discoveries were changing the knowledge landscape. Europe was awakening to a new age and needed new reference books to teach teachers and students about human history.
A new number system was replacing the old Roman number symbol count system and great effort was done in translating numerical event dates. The newly invented printing press pushed new ideas into the minds of the very few who could even read their own names. A large island continent was just discovered beyond the western ocean that needed a name and a new identity.
While looking for important chronological documents from the early Renaissance that may have attempted to package Western History, I came across a German historian named Hartman Schedel who published THE NUREMBURG CHRONICLE one year after the voyage of Columbus. This illustrated document outlines Western History from Adam to the discovery of the New World.
Historians of that age probably had limited access to a collection of calendrical data from earlier record keepers and attempted to make sense of the data by dating important events to a timeline so that others may learn. Unlike today when one just visits the local city library to research dates of historical events, historians back then could not just "read" the facts, they had to "patch" timelines together. It was a complex job and much of it was guesswork because earlier timeline conclusions were hard to verify.
And that's what probably happened when the historians attempted to date the Biblical, Greco-Roman and Medieval timeline eras while compiling THE NUREMBURG CHRONICLE -- they "patched" these periods together and "established" the conventional timeline of Western History. How this one very important document became the "timeline bible" of Western History for other European historians was because it may have been the only important "history map" that survived a major book burning campaign by a Papal Bull order some nine years after it was published.
Much of the Biblical Era of Western History includes B.C. event dates from Adam to Christ. Although the Holy Bible also includes New Testament event dates after Christ, many of these conventional A.D. dates were established centuries after they truly happened by "historians" trying to make a record of Biblical history. This timeline era argument is primary concerned with the time unit values of the Old Testament because of certain calendrical mistakes in translating Hebraic history.
For example, according to conventional Biblical history, there exist 3,761 "years" between Adam and Christ -- as in the year 3761 B.C. is the start of the conventional Hebrew Calendar. However, because other Biblical records also suggest the incredible view that persons like Methuselah lived some 969 "years", perhaps the Hebraic "year" value can sometimes be translated into meaning a "month" value -- thus the idea that 3,761 months existed between Adam and Christ is more plausible. If Methuselah lived only 969 months -- or about 80 years, then perhaps other dated conclusions from the Biblical Era were also miscalculated by some historians.
This historical view is only one of several ways to "compress" the conventional timeline of Western History. There are many other ways to assign smaller timeline values to certain time units and numerical symbols once used by ancient historians. The Jubilee count is another Biblical time unit value I will explain later.
Sure, there exist the dated "list of Roman Emperors" to prove the 4-year Olympiad theory -- but this list could have been created over the last five centuries by other historians trying to "add" to the dated conclusions of earlier historians. Perhaps some of the "listed emperors" were in fact leaders living throughout the Roman Empire at the same time -- instead of successive leaders.
Because new calendrical data suggest that the original 292 Olympiad events were timely events related to an annual timekeeping ceremony once used by our agrarian ancestors -- and that other historians confused these timely events with a 4-year "leap-day" period event of the Julian Calendar, perhaps all the year dates of the Greco-Roman Era are about one-fourth of the conventional timeline value.
For example, instead of the conventional view that the first Olympiad took place 776 years before Christ, perhaps only 776 seasons -- or about 194 years, existed between the two events. Because so much has been written and printed in textbooks about this time period, changing the events of Biblical and Greco-Roman history will prove challenging for modern historians.
And speaking of changing the conclusions of earlier historians, the third timeline era argument was the trickiest to understand. When publishers placed the Medieval Era -- also known as the Middle Ages, in between ancient Greco-Roman and modern history during the early Renaissance, these publishers used annual time counting units like the Olympiads and Jubilees to measure history.
For example, let's imagine that an important religious document of the Renaissance recorded a Jubilee count of 30 between the birth of Christ and the discovery of the New World. Also, within other Biblical documents is the stated annual value of a Jubilee -- such as in Leviticus 25.8-9 wherein a value of almost 50 years is recorded. One can see that an annual conclusion of about 1,500 years would exist between the birth of Christ and Columbus' voyage.
Moreover, add to this theoretical timeline conclusion the numerical assumption that some, but not all, dated events of the late Middle Ages used the Roman numerical "M" symbol proceeding a numerical date. This dating habit would suggest the view to publishers of the early printing age that there must have been at least a thousand years of poorly dated events that existed between the fall of the Roman Empire and the discovery of the New World.
However, let us view the idea that the 30 unit Jubilee count was actually the 4-year "leap-day" count of the Julian Calendar -- and that the Roman "M" symbol was a "mark" reference symbol meaning "thou-son" that preceded a year count related to an important personality from Biblical times. In other words, perhaps only about 120 years existed between the birth of Christ and the early Renaissance (30 X 4 = 120) -- and that the assumed thousand year value count, that precedes some dated year count examples from that age, was misunderstood as part of the annual number count.
For example, say there was a manuscript that gave the Roman numerical date of "MCCCIV" -- which translates into 1,304 years after the birth of Christ. If this conventional 1304 A.D. date value of the manuscript was retranslated into 304 years -- or "CCCIV", by not including the Roman "M" number symbol, then the manuscript would be dated at the value of 304 years after an important personality from Biblical times.
And if the date was based on true annual Hebrew timekeeping -- such as Moses' ancestral genealogy, then perhaps the manuscript used a date based on the Old Testament -- not the New Testament. Publishers may have assumed the dated manuscript was a Christian "A.D." date -- not a Hebrew date based on the annual birth of Adam. So, 304 years after "Adam" -- not Christ, would be the original value of the manuscript.
Adding about 30 four-year Jubilees (or 120 years) after Christ to the new 304 Hebrew year count after Adam, the new time value of about 424 years would be the true value of ancient and medieval history.
Now, because all dates from that time period could have been "moved around" a little by early historians in their need to "define history", the technically remaining 26 years between the "424" date and the "official c.1450 A.D." date (c.450 years after Adam) of the beginning of the Renaissance is relatively a small time value to argue over.
Also, because historical scholars of the early Renaissance -- who first published the A.D. timeline in mass print, misinterpreted the year count value between the last Olympiad of 392 A.D. (CCCDXXXXII) and 1492 A.D. (MCCCCDXXXXII) as 1,100 years, only about one-hundred years can now be accounted for between a 392 year count and a 492 year count. This view supports the idea that perhaps some publishers measured the end of the Middle Ages with the discovery of the New World in 1492 A.D. and not the invention of the printing press in c.1450 A.D..
I should also point out that the most durable items with A.D. dates on them from this "history making" time period were metal coins -- and these "time markers" only began marking annual time just before the voyage of Columbus. The very few coins that use A.D. dates from before Columbus could have been minted long after their true dates as ceremonial reference coins to date an event many years before.
Most all coins without A.D. dates on them from that period and before the Renaissance have been post dated by other historians which associate their place in the conventional timeline with whoever's face or personality is imprinted on them. Some of these dated coins are based on a list of Popes -- wherein, like the Roman Emperor list mentioned earlier, important religious leaders may have only ruled certain districts within the Holy Roman Empire at the same time and not, like many believe, in succession.
Publishers of the early Renaissance could have also confused other similar numerical value symbols used by historians from that age. The best example of similar numerical value symbol confusion is the Roman "C" and the Greek "G" values.
Not only do they appear the same in their capital layout design, but because the lower italic symbol of "G" (g) looks like the symbol for the scripted number "8" -- and because the crescent "C" symbol originated from the 100 count value (99 months equals almost exactly 8 years), perhaps the value of 100 and the value of 1,000 -- as in "Grand", were confused in some important counting and dating situations.
So again, by applying these smaller numerical values to the three timeline eras from before the Renaissance, and linking them together, a plausible historical view appears and suggests a much, much smaller timeline of Western History.
Add to this new and radical interpretation of Western History the recent radiocarbon-14 test discovery in which Christ's burial cloth was scientifically dated to only about seven centuries ago, and some would think that several top universities should begin to study and verify these new historical findings.
If they can be verified and better understood, then the true length of human history should be taught in our educational institutions -- instead of the same bloated conventional timeline currently being memorized.