# Chronology



## Grosseteste (Jun 10, 2021)

Hi all. I was asked privately to post again about dating and chronology. The original thread was here Dating and Chronology but got disrupted. 

I work on the history of theology in the High Middle Ages (1200-1350) a subject supported by 10s of thousands of documents. There is considerable evidence that the 'official' version of history is the correct one, or at least approximately so. 

Happy to discuss that evidence.


----------



## JohnNada (Jun 10, 2021)

Thank you for restarting this thread! I apologize if this was already covered in the previous thread, but at this point, that one is so full of banter and links that there is likely quite a bit lost. I’ll start with this:

In past threads, there has been discussion of missing original documents, with many older documents seeming to be copies of the originals that were created in the 1500’s. With that being said, what is the oldest original document or manuscript you have personally seen and or worked with?

Follow up question is what is the oldest original document that you know of, and is there any way for the public to access the original or a digital copy of the same?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 10, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> Thank you for restarting this thread! I apologize if this was already covered in the previous thread, but at this point, that one is so full of banter and links that there is likely quite a bit lost. I’ll start with this:
> 
> In past threads, there has been discussion of missing original documents, with many older documents seeming to be copies of the originals that were created in the 1500’s. With that being said, what is the oldest original document or manuscript you have personally seen and or worked with?
> 
> Follow up question is what is the oldest original document that you know of, and is there any way for the public to access the original or a digital copy of the same?



Thanks for these great questions. There are really three questions, (1) are many older documents copies of the originals that were created in the 1500s? (2) what is the oldest original document or manuscript I have personally seen and or worked with (3) what is the oldest original document that I know of, and is there any way for the public to access the original or a digital copy of the same

Question 1. Depends on the sense of ‘copy’. With the advent of printing in the mid 1400s there was a big (and profitable) industry of taking old manuscripts and turning them into print. The oldest book I own is dated 1507, but it is a copy of a work written probably in the 1220s. There are a few manuscript copies around, and there was one for sale here Medieval Manuscripts but these go for silly money.

Also, most manuscripts _are_ copies, because without the convenience of printing every single copy of a work has to be, er, a copy that was made laboriously over weeks or months by someone (often a monk) using a quill pen. Most of these copies would be contemporary.

Question 2. The oldest document I have worked with is the so-called Worcester 13 manuscript in the Worcester Cathedral Library which is a witness to the kind of logical and philosophical material taught and discussed at Oxford University in the late thirteenth century. It was written by John Aston, see his signature below. (“Explicunt quaestiones libri physicorum notatae a I(ohanne) Aston post magistrum Ricardum de Clive” – here end the questions on (Aristotle’s) book of physics, written down by John Aston, following the master Richard de Clive).






I have been transcribing this manuscript, which involves taking the difficult to read shorthand used by the scribes, into modern Latin script. It’s hard work! How do we know that this manuscript was not written in the 1500s? A number of reasons.

First, why would anyone go to the expense of rewriting a manuscript with a quill pen, when they could print it? There was a short period when the ‘scriptoria’ – sweatshops of poorly paid professional scribes who would churn out handwritten manuscript copies, but there was no way they could compete financially with the printers, and they were soon driven out of business.

Second, there are external references which allow us to date a manuscript. John’s manuscript refers to Richard de Clive and others, who we know from University registers were masters at Oxford around the 1270s. One section of the MS (see below) refers to Simon of Montfort who died on August 4, 1265 at the battle of Evesham. He was notable as the main leader of the baronial opposition to King Henry III of England, so the reference is likely a contemporary one that is fresh in readers’ minds. Another part reads ‘Henricus est rex Angliae’, likely referring to Henry I of England (1068 – 1135).





Third, the subject matter often identifies the period. The extract below is about the theory of ‘ampliation’, where a verb refers to an object or person who existed in the past, but exists no more. In this case, our friend Simon of Montfort, who ‘is’ (present tense) praised, but who no longer exists in the present. This version of the theory prevailed in the mid to late 1200s, and explains some of the thought of Duns Scotus, who went to university in that period, and would have learned that theory at an impressionable age.

[Note also my work is in the area of 'the history of ideas', which is not the history of politicians or kings or buildings or are, but rather the history of thought itself. Thought evolves in certain ways just like fashion, art, architecture etc. Thought itself has a sort of timestamp.]

Finally, there is the handwriting itself. The extract below is known as anglicana, a style that prevailed from the mid 13th century to the 14th century.




[...] Hoc membrum ‘non habens vim ampliandi’
apponitur quia, si sit verbum amplians, potest subiectum supponere pro non
ente, ut ‘homo laudatur’ haec est vera pro *symone de mon
teforti* , et est verbum amplians cuius res potest inesse non-existenti.

Third question, “what is the oldest original document that you know of, and is there any way for the public to access the original or a digital copy of the same?” Very old docs not a subject of mine. It is well known that in the Carolingian period they made many copies of old docs, then presumably threw the old docs away. I attach a screenshot of a 9th-century copy of Boethius's Latin translation of Aristotle's De interpretatione (below) owned by Lawrence Schoenberg. There are many older manuscripts, but they get increasingly rare (and expensive) as we go back in time. The really expensive stuff goes to the museums who have the kind of money to afford it. The very oldest ms that exists is the Spitzer Manuscript tentatively dated between 80–230 CE.





Hope this helps.


[EDIT] For anyone who actually wants to *see* some old ms, try this link Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana to the Vatican collection, which is one of the biggest. Much of their collection has been digitised.

E.g. this one DigiVatLib a copy of a work by Plato, tentatively IX X century.


----------



## JohnNada (Jun 10, 2021)

Thank you for the great reply! In your research, have  you ever come across any provenance that appeared questionable or incomplete?

Additionally, have you ever come across any wild contradictions between the same events mentioned in two separate documents, i.e. - anything that may indicate some sort of forgery or correction of events between two different parties?

Edit: Wanted to add another bit before I lost the link for the Missing 1000 Years that folks have in question. When you have a chance to review this, I would love to hear your thoughts on the hypothesis provided that 1000 years was added to our calendars.

Thank you for taking the time to address these!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 10, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> Thank you for the great reply! In your research, have  you ever come across any provenance that appeared questionable or incomplete?
> 
> Additionally, have you ever come across any wild contradictions between the same events mentioned in two separate documents, i.e. - anything that may indicate some sort of forgery or correction of events between two different parties?



Conflicts in the data occur all the time, as you would expect. Most is explained by mistakes. The best forgery (or rather plagiarism) was a long commentary on Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ purportedly authored by Duns Scotus, but actually written by Thomas Aquinas, but heavily edited to disguise the source. 



> Edit: Wanted to add another bit before I lost the link for the Missing 1000 Years that folks have in question. When you have a chance to review this, I would love to hear your thoughts on the hypothesis provided that 1000 years was added to our calendars.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to address these!



There is absolutely no evidence that 1,000 years was added in the Christian era, and all the evidence that exists is against the idea. 

Pre-Christian, there is some evidence that the Chronology of the Hebrew Bible ('Old Testament') was basically made up for religious and political reasons, but that is a separate issue. 

The main way we detect falsification is through independent sources. Hoyland has written an excellent history on the early Islamic period using only non-Islamic sources. (_In God's Path_, Oxford 2015).


----------



## JohnNada (Jun 10, 2021)

Thank you for the quick response, and for addressing the missing thousand years issue. The notion of the Pre-Christian chronology being made up is definitely intriguing. I’m sure that others here, and certainly myself, would love to hear more about it, especially being that it sounds like this notion is accepted by some modern historians. That, however, sounds like it would need it’s own thread. I’m sure I’ll have some more specific questions when I’m not distracted from work. Thank you again! We’re all here trying to find out more about some of the stranger parts of our history, and sometimes the threads can devolve when we have a mainstream historian around to help answer some questions. Thank you for sticking it out with us this long, and I look forward to picking your brain further!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 10, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> Thank you for the quick response, and for addressing the missing thousand years issue. The notion of the Pre-Christian chronology being made up is definitely intriguing. I’m sure that others here, and certainly myself, would love to hear more about it, especially being that it sounds like this notion is accepted by some modern historians.


Thanks!

The view that the Bible is a later construction was mooted as long ago as Spinoza (1632-77), who thought that Ezra was the true author of the Pentateuch. Spinoza | My Jewish Learning

[EDIT] For a modern view, the late Philip Daves has written much about biblical 'history. 



> I can answer the question of what we know about David and Solomon very simply.  Archaeologically we know absolutely nothing.  Historically we know virtually nothing.  All we know about them are stories about them and the stories are all in the Bible.  So, the question is can we convert Bible knowledge, stories about them into some other kind of knowledge.
> 
> Directly, we can’t.  The only way we can do it indirectly is to find archaeologically or historically some kind of other evidence that makes it plausible for these characters to have existed, though even plausibility doesn’t guarantee anything.  But that would be a step forward.  Unfortunately on that I have to say also that the archaeological evidence is generally speaking against, rather than for.  I think for it to be historically likely that Solomon and David existed, the archaeological evidence would have to be predominately with, given that this is indirect evidence anyway.  David and Solomon


I corresponded with Davies a while back for help on my own book on the Bible (and the Quran) published last year. Reference and Identity in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Scriptures: The Same God? (Philosophy of Language: Connections and Perspectives): Amazon.co.uk: D. E. Buckner: 9781498587419: Books


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 10, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> First, why would anyone go to the expense of rewriting a manuscript with a quill pen, when they could print it? There was a short period when the ‘scriptoria’ – sweatshops of poorly paid professional scribes who would churn out handwritten manuscript copies, but there was no way they could compete financially with the printers, and they were soon driven out of business.



This is a quote from "History: fiction or science Vol.1" by Fomenko (Chapter 1, paragraph 12, page 59 - http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-049-070.pdf):


> Handwritten books remained in existence for a long time after the invention of the printing press. They had been made in large quantities in the XV-XVIII century all across Europe ([740], pages 13, 25). In the Balkans,“handwritten books managed to compete with the printed ones” as recently as the XIX century ([740], page 26). Apart from a few exceptions, the entire Irish literature of the VII-XVII century “only exists in the handwritten form” (quoted by [740], page 28). Up until 1500 a.d., 77 percent of all printed books are supposed to have been in Latin, possibly due to the fact that the Latin fonts were easy to make. Other fonts made their way into the printing practice extremely slowly. The diacritic signs were difficult to make, as well as the ones used for stresses, vocalizations, etc. This is why “the scribes had remained without competition in what concerned copying the Greek, Arabic and Hebraic manuscripts” for centuries after the invention of the printing press ([740], page 57).


Fomenko here in #740 is quoting a Russian book called "# [740] "Рукописная и печатная книга". Сборник статей. - М., Наука, 1975." (chronologia.org/lit_nx.html), which translates as ""Handwritten and printed book". Digest of articles. - M., Science, 1975" (more or less).

I have found a brief summary of its content here (СМИ. Сборники (рус.)) and seems it is widely reknown in Russia, so it's difficult to say its informations are not true or inaccurate.


> *Handwritten and printed book. *_(Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1975. - USSR Academy of Sciences. Scientific Council on the History of World Culture)_
> CONTENTS:
> The tasks of studying the relationship between a handwritten book and a printed one. D.S. Likhachev (3).
> To the definition of the concept of "book" in the historical aspect. N.N. Rozov (11).
> ...


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 10, 2021)

Fomenko is right that the production of manuscripts continued into modern times 

Here is a very nice one (in Greek) from the 18C.
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_78675_f001r


----------



## JohnNada (Jun 10, 2021)

There is another thread on here that I can’t seem to locate that dives in to the use of an I or a J in place of a 1 on historic dates, but those dates are treated as though there is no difference between the date I736/J736 and 1736. Are you aware of this, and do you have an explanation for the same?

Note: I will continue searching the site for the proper thread to link. If anyone can find it faster than I, please share a link!

Edit to add links: 
This link provides a related example of what seems to be an added 1000 years in the Russian archives in the 700 or 1700s, depending on which page you are reading im the document. Not the exact link I was looking for, but still presenting the same type of occurrence. And Extra Millenium in the Russian Archives

I know there is a thread in here for a European example as well, I just can’t seem to locate the little bugger...


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 11, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> There is another thread on here that I can’t seem to locate that dives in to the use of an I or a J in place of a 1 on historic dates, but those dates are treated as though there is no difference between the date I736/J736 and 1736. Are you aware of this, and do you have an explanation for the same?
> 
> Note: I will continue searching the site for the proper thread to link. If anyone can find it faster than I, please share a link!
> 
> ...



This thread SH Archive - 1,000 extra years of phantom time solved? America was not discovered in 1492? claims that 1530 = I530 = 530, right at the beginning. But there is no justification whatever for that claim. 

The 'Year of the World' Anno Mundi - Wikipedia is based on the supposed Creation of the world as set out in Genesis. The Year of Rome is based on the supposed founding of Rome.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 11, 2021)

No. There are many documents. But the only thing they are proof of is that they exist.
It would have been very easy for people in the 16th-18th centuries(and beyond) to fabricate both "ancient" and "mediaeval" documents.

A good starting place is "The Mysteries of Chronology" by F.F. Arbuthnot.
I'll search for exact quote, but the style(as mentioned in Grossetste['s link) "Written in northeastern Italy in the last quarter of the fifteenth century as indicated by the style of the script and illumination." is a very good indicator of a forgery.

Both Edwin Johnson and F. F. Arbuthnot(and no doubt others) noticed how absolutely uniform certain styles of certain eras were. That is actually impossible unless these documents were all created at a much later time than their dates would indicate. And if one person was assigned eg. "the late fifteenth century"

Link to PDF of Arbuthnot..
https://ia802305.us.archive.org/10/items/mysteriesofchron00arbuiala/mysteriesofchron00arbuiala.pdf
While someone else was fixating on Easter dating, the link to Edwin Johnson's "Pauline Espistles" throws up a far more interesting quote, from Polydor Vergil.



> In those times Perfect Letters, both Latin and Greek, [12] shut out from Italy by nefarious wars, exterminated, expelled, poured over the Alps, through all Germany, Gaul, England, and Scotland. The Germans first introduced them into their towns, and, having been the most illiterate of all in former times, are now the most learned. To the French, English, Scotch, not to speak of others, the same boon was imparted by the Almighty. For letters alone make our good deeds eternal, and preserve the memory of our name. Therefore many great men and most noble ladies everywhere began to assist the studies of good arts and disciplines. That these might the more earnestly be cultivated among the English, Margaret, Henry's mother, a most holy woman, at the exhortation of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, a man of the highest learning, grace, and integrity, built at Cambridge, in a noble and celebrated place, two splendid houses, in which she instituted two colleges of disciples, and dedicated one to Christ Saviour, the other to St. John Evangelist ; and she gave large funds for their living. Also, in that academy, John Alcock, Bishop of Ely, a father of illustrious piety and virtue, was a little while before founder of a college which he consecrated to Jesus ; that, under his leadership, they who gave themselves to the culture of good disciplines might not err, but might pursue the right path, and receive the true reward of. glory and praise which he promised to well-doers. About the same time, also, William Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, led by the example of Margaret, founded a college of youths at Oxon, who should be devoted to good disciplines, and exercises in letters, in the hall commonly called Brasyn Nose, so named because there a brazen figure, with immane face, stands before the doors. Also Richard, Bishop of Winton, did a similar work at Oxon, and he called it the Corpus Christi College. The same stimulus of virtue and glory stirred up John Colet, dean, as they say, of St. Paul's, to the desire of propagating good letters of that kind. " He, adorned partly by the virtue of his mind and soul, partly by the integrity of his life and morals, was held among his fellow Englishmen almost as a second Apostle Paul, because by nature saintly and religious from his early boyhood; he betook himself to the study of divine letters, and chose Paul for his preceptor, and so studied Paul, both at Oxon and Cambridge and in Italy, that when [13] he returned home a finished scholar he began, in his native city of London, to read the Pauline Epistles, and often to preach in the temples. He lived as he taught, and so men acquiesced in his excellent precepts. "A most temperate man, he lived on one meal a day. He thirsted not for honours or wealth; but the riches he fled from pursued and overtook him. It so happened that, of two and twenty children whom his father, Henry Colet, had by his Christian wife, a noble lady, John alone survived, and became his father's sole heir. Then John, seeing that many of his fellow citizens, by the mere habit of their nature, turned out grave and modest men, thought that they would be much much more excellent if they should receive a good education. Therefore, he resolved to assist, at his own expense, the youth of London to acquire learning. He founded, in that part of St. Paul's Churchyard which looks to the east, a splendid school, and appointed William Lily teacher, and a second to instruct the ruder boys. Good Lily, as Horace says, was integer vitae scelerisque purus. Having studied the Perfect Letters some years in Italy, he returned home, and was the first Englishman to teach them in England to his countrymen. Before him Cornelio Vitellio, an Italian, of Corneto, in Tuscany, of a noble stock, was the first of all to teach good letters to the boys at Oxon. John Reighey and Richard Jones followed Lily as masters. The masters were endowed with yearly stipends from Colet's property



Polydore Vergil, "Analica Historia," xxxvi., s. f.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 11, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> I know there is a thread in here for a European example as well, I just can’t seem to locate the little bugger...



The issue has arisen within many threads. From memory it revolves around the fact that there is/was no symbol for the letter 'J' in Latin script and an 'I' or 'i' was used to represent the 'J' sound. Just to confuse matter even more, often the letter 'I' or the number 'I' (1) were written with a flourish making them look like a 'J' and this has given rise to the notion that it somehow distinguishes dates that refer to the Julian calendar, but it couldn't because it's not a letter 'J' as the 'J' symbol didn't exist and Julian would be written Iulianus.. although it could be an 'I' with a flourish of course. It's a kind of circular argument.

Btw, I'm not stating that any of this is definitive, I'm just explaining the gist of the issue as I recall it.

Interesting thread


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 11, 2021)

Daniel said:


> No. There are many documents. But the only thing they are proof of is that they exist.
> It would have been *very easy* for people in the 16th-18th centuries (and beyond) to fabricate both "ancient" and "mediaeval" documents.



Hence the _thoughts_ that they express exist. But there is the problem. My subject area is the history of ideas, i.e. the history of thought, particularly in works of philosophy and theology. The distinctive feature of such works is that the writers refer to other writers. Thus Kant refers to Leibniz, Leibniz refers to Suarez, Suarez refers to Ockham, Scotus and Aquinas, Aquinas refers to Boethius, Boethius to Augustine, Augustine to the Bible and to Aristotle and Plato, Aristotle refers to Plato etc.

All of these writers (and many many more) produced difficult works of great complexity, and it is a lifetime’s work even to understand one of them. So I don’t see why it would be ‘very easy’ for people in the 16th-18th centuries to produce their work. Did these fabricators write as a team? Then one person would have to write the works of Plato, in ancient Greek. After they had finished, another would have to write the works of Plato, also in ancient Greek. Then someone, acting as Boethius, would ‘translate’ the works of Aristotle into Latin, as well as Boethius’ extensive commentaries on Aristotle. Another team would be working in Syriac and Arabic and Latin to reproduce the translations of Aristotle into Syriac, then into Arabic, finally into Latin to get the Latin versions of Aristotle that the ‘early’ Western writers relied on, ‘not having’ Aristotle in the original Greek. (I put the scare quotes in because in fact the team did have all the works of Aristotle to hand, but were pretending that the early Western scholastic team did not have the Greek version used by the Aristotle team).

Likewise the team would have to produce all the massive literature of all Western philosophy (and Islamic philosophy, and many other works). They would have to reproduce the complex and difficult work of Kant, for example.





I don’t see this as ‘very easy’. I would be interested in the views of others on this!

[EDIT] And of course that picture is just of one library (Trinity College Dublin). The same team would have to produce the contents of all the other great libraries, including all the manuscripts in the Vatican Library). Great work.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 11, 2021)

All explained by Johnson over 120 years ago.

Let's take Writer A. He creates a text, and names names. He may even briefly 'quote' one of these people. But none of these people ever existed.

Now that we have names, Writer 2 or Writer 3 can write some more "ancient" material. Maybe use one of these fake names, and even refer to the writings of another fake name. Possibly even another 'quote' or two.

Over time, some people may "flesh out" some of these writings. But it's no concern if they don't. Because then we have "lost" writings.

Certainly, this appears to be the way the Bible was written in the 15th/16th centuries.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 11, 2021)

Daniel said:


> All explained by Johnson over 120 years ago.
> 
> Let's take Writer A. He creates a text, and names names. He may even briefly 'quote' one of these people. But none of these people ever existed.
> 
> ...



As I said, it’s not just that author A mentions author B, it’s also that we have the complete, or near complete, works of B. For example, William of Ockham references Scotus verbatim, and we also have the work of Scotus himself to check. So you haven’t addressed the problem of how a team of people managed to create these great works.

Arbuthnot is writing at a time when the great scholastic works were being rescued from oblivion. I checked for references to Scotus, Ockham and Aquinas, but found none. I did find a reference to Bacon, however.



> If the reader cares to examine the books of biography, the many encyclopaedias and other works of reference, he will find under the name of Roger Bacon a voluminous account of this wonder of the age, this author of many works, great natural philosopher and also theologian.
> It is curious therefore that Leland could not find much that he had written. Of course it may be urged that many of the books were ordered to be destroyed by the ecclesiastics as being too far in advance of the time. Still, if all these works were really destroyed in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, and neither John Boston, Polydore Vergil, nor John Leland could name them in the sixteenth century, how has all the information been obtained about this great genius in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ?
> https://ia802305.us.archive.org/10/items/mysteriesofchron00arbuiala/mysteriesofchron00arbuiala.pdf  p211



Bacon’s works were not edited (by Steele) until the 1900s, so would not have been available to Arbuthnot. See here SIEPM Medieval Philosophy Online - virtual library, web resources, e-texts, digitized books, scans under ‘Bacon’.There are more recent critical editions of his work, such as this Roger Bacon's Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction and Notes, of "De Multiplicatione Specierum'"and "De Speculis Comburentibus": Amazon.co.uk: Bacon, Roger, Lindberg, David C., Lindberg, David C., Lindberg, David C.: 9781890318758: Books .


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 11, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> This thread SH Archive - 1,000 extra years of phantom time solved? America was not discovered in 1492? claims that 1530 = I530 = 530, right at the beginning. But there is no justification whatever for that claim.
> 
> The 'Year of the World' Anno Mundi - Wikipedia is based on the supposed Creation of the world as set out in Genesis. The Year of Rome is based on the supposed founding of Rome.


And the Anno Domini (Anno Domini - Wikipedia) is based on the supposed un-scientific date in which Jesus was born.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 11, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> As I said, it’s not just that author A mentions author B, it’s also that we have the complete, or near complete, works of B. For example, William of Ockham references Scotus verbatim, and we also have the work of Scotus himself to check. So you haven’t addressed the problem of how a team of people managed to create these great works.
> 
> Arbuthnot is writing at a time when the great scholastic works were being rescued from oblivion. I checked for references to Scotus, Ockham and Aquinas, but found none. I did find a reference to Bacon, however.
> 
> ...


I'm using phone now, and I'll reply in-depth later, but basically the question is :"When did we first get the complete works of *?"

As stated, a writer can mention another writer by name. But that doesn't mean that the other person ever existed at all. In fact, I believe Johnson was the one who went into detail about how this works.

With the fake historians, all that was needed during the early Tudor Era was names like "Bede", "Gildas" etc. And perhaps a few "quotes". It could all be put together later.

Another excellent read is Edwin Johnson's "The Rise of English Culture", which I'll put a link to later.

In fact it's best to read Johnson, Arbuthnot, and indeed others, because I'm sure there are other key points that I'm forgetting for now.*


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 11, 2021)

Daniel said:


> *As stated, a writer can mention another writer by name. But that doesn't mean that the other person ever existed at all. *



You ignored my point that the works attributed to that person exist. It's not just that Ockham refers to Scotus by name. It's that the work he refers to exists. We still have it. 

[EDIT] Here is the work that Ockham refers to. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.876 There are many manuscripts and printed editions. 

I appreciate you are on the phone, but you really ought to read my post more carefully.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 11, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Hence the _thoughts_ that they express exist. But there is the problem. My subject area is the history of ideas, i.e. the history of thought, particularly in works of philosophy and theology. The distinctive feature of such works is that the writers refer to other writers. Thus Kant refers to Leibniz, Leibniz refers to Suarez, Suarez refers to Ockham, Scotus and Aquinas, Aquinas refers to Boethius, Boethius to Augustine, Augustine to the Bible and to Aristotle and Plato, Aristotle refers to Plato etc.
> 
> All of these writers (and many many more) produced difficult works of great complexity, and it is a lifetime’s work even to understand one of them. So I don’t see why it would be ‘very easy’ for people in the 16th-18th centuries to produce their work. Did these fabricators write as a team? Then one person would have to write the works of Plato, in ancient Greek. After they had finished, another would have to write the works of Plato, also in ancient Greek. Then someone, acting as Boethius, would ‘translate’ the works of Aristotle into Latin, as well as Boethius’ extensive commentaries on Aristotle. Another team would be working in Syriac and Arabic and Latin to reproduce the translations of Aristotle into Syriac, then into Arabic, finally into Latin to get the Latin versions of Aristotle that the ‘early’ Western writers relied on, ‘not having’ Aristotle in the original Greek. (I put the scare quotes in because in fact the team did have all the works of Aristotle to hand, but were pretending that the early Western scholastic team did not have the Greek version used by the Aristotle team).
> 
> ...



I respect your work but all you are saying is deeply rooted in the commonly accepted chronology. If the current chronology changes, the history of ideas changes too, and historians will find ways to make things work in the same way they are doing now. In fact I agree with you when you say it's not an easy task. And the current history of ideas is the product of generations of historians who "worked" on those texts to make them "work". I am certain many things in those texts must be _explained _otherwise they could be _interpreted _in a different way. Those obscure phrases, very abundant in medieval texts, are most probably the remains of a different chronology which didn't found place in the current one. There are books and authors ignored by historians because considered unreliable, all due to chronological errors ignored by historians.

To be more specific, the common practice of dating through internal references is unreliable, because subject to many different factors which require some sort of _belief _in the correctness of modern chronology and the works based upon it.

In any case I'm not saying that your work has no value. It would require a lot of writing to express my thoughts on this one. My only concern is strictly chronology, which cannot be determined by methods entirely dependent from the one currently accepted


----------



## Daniel (Jun 12, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> You ignored my point that the works attributed to that person exist. It's not just that Ockham refers to Scotus by name. It's that the work he refers to exists. We still have it.
> 
> [EDIT] Here is the work that Ockham refers to. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.876 There are many manuscripts and printed editions.
> 
> I appreciate you are on the phone, but you really ought to read my post more carefully.


I'd remove the word "still". We do NOT "still" have it. We have it. And then copies of it.
But when did we first have it? That is the question.
It appears you did not read others' posts carefully.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 12, 2021)

Daniel said:


> I'd remove the word "still". We do NOT "still" have it. We have it. And then copies of it.
> But when did we first have it? That is the question. It appears you did not read others' posts carefully.



But we do ‘still’ have it. ‘Still’ signifies that we have not lost the work at some point, as opposed to ‘we have it no longer’.

When did we _first_ have it?

Let’s start with the man mentioned by Arbuthnot, John Leland (1503-1552), the historian who developed the use of primary sources in historical research. He was famously commissioned by Henry VIII in 1533 to investigate and catalogue the libraries of the great English monasteries: “to peruse and diligently to serche al the libraries of monasteries and collegies of this yowre noble reaulme”. Leland’s record was published as _De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea_ in 6 vols. You can see the record for Greyfriars London here. Joannis Lelandi antiquarii De rebvs britannicis collectanea.

The writers mentioned include ‘Lincolniensis’ – that’s me, Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln! – author of _super Libros Dionysii de Hierarchia_, a commentary on pseudo-Dionysius. But let’s focus on the works of William of Ockham ‘the reverend inceptor Franciscan Ockam’, page 50. The items mentioned include _Expositio super Porphyrium_ (exposition on Porphyry), _Super Praedicamenta_ (On [Aristotle’s] Categories), and _Super libr. Periermenia_ (On [Aristotle’s] Perihermenias aka _De Interpretatione_). These are all works on what the medieval scholastics called the _Ars Vetus_, or the Old Art/Old Logic, referring to the works of Aristotle known to the Latin West in before the mid 13th century from translations by Boethius. (Boethius is another separate story, crucial to the order of dating – I am happy to discuss any of this).

Assuming that Leland had been commissioned by Henry in 1533, and that’s another question we can follow up, we have established a _terminus ante quem_ for Ockham’s work on the Old Art, i.e. a time before which it must have been written.

You can read about Leland here John Leland: The man who saved medieval knowledge.

The monasteries were dissolved by Henry in a process starting in the 1530s, so it is likely that _that_ copy of Ockham’s work was lost. But, if you want, we can go on to discuss why we _still_ have those works by Ockham.

Have I made sense so far?


----------



## Daniel (Jun 12, 2021)

I think a good place to look at this sort of "history by documents" is Edwin Johnson.
Here are links to two of Johnson's works..

_The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained_ (1894)
and


_The Rise of English Culture_ (1904)
One thing I learned from Johnson was that we should never start at Point A, and work forwards ASSUMING we are reading the unvarnished truth.
Rather, we should begin TODAY, and then gradually move backwards through time, asking "Did the people of [period] have knowledge of [x]?"
As we move back, we discover that certain things that we simply take for granted today were completely unknown by our ancestors of only a few hundred years ago.

That's why I refer to "When did we first know of it?" Someone in 1533 speaking of something from 1300 doesn't verify that the something from 1300 ever really existed at all.  In fact, we can even ask "Starting from the present, and working back, how far back do we have an unbroken chain of knowledge of..[z]?"

Using this method, even the "venerable Bede"(as Johnson demonstrates) appears to have been a fictitious historian, created under the reign of Henry VIII.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 12, 2021)

As I said a few posts back, Johnson and Arbuthnot did not have access to medieval documents. Yes it is a separate question about the existence of what Leland was referring to, and what that 'something' actually is or was. I could talk a bit more about that.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 12, 2021)

Why did they not have access to mediaeval documents?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 12, 2021)

Two questions here. (1) How do we know they didn’t have access to medieval documents and (2) If they didn’t have access, why not?

Answer to first question is by looking at the index and reading what they say about any prominent medieval writer listed there. Arbuthnot only lists Roger Bacon, and what he says there is patent nonsense, although typical of the stuff that some 19C scholars learned about Bacon from secondary or tertiary sources.

To second question, a number of reasons.

First, the culture in England for a long time was to regard the middle ages as a time of darkness and superstition, so there was no academic discipline of medieval research.

Second, the sources were spread about all over Europe. I know of 11 manuscripts of Ockham’s work on the Old Logic, three in Florence, two in Paris, two in Rome, one in Bruges, one in Oxford, one in Assisi, and one found its way to Los Angeles (!). Not easy to research.

Third, catalogues were generally not available until medievalism had developed as an academic specialism in the late 19C and throughout the 20C. So even though the works were there, no one would know they were there.

Finally, these things are very hard to read. See below for a screenshot of the copy held in the Vatican library. Not only is it in Latin, it is a technical Latin that you have to learn, plus the scribes used a sort of shorthand to save time. See below. Can you read it?






These days we have ‘critical editions’ which are prepared by specialists in Latin that non specialists could read. These editions would not have been available to Arbuthnot or Johnson.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 12, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Hence the _thoughts_ that they express exist. But there is the problem. My subject area is the history of ideas, i.e. the history of thought, particularly in works of philosophy and theology. The distinctive feature of such works is that the writers refer to other writers. Thus Kant refers to Leibniz, Leibniz refers to Suarez, Suarez refers to Ockham, Scotus and Aquinas, Aquinas refers to Boethius, Boethius to Augustine, Augustine to the Bible and to Aristotle and Plato, Aristotle refers to Plato etc.
> 
> All of these writers (and many many more) produced difficult works of great complexity, and it is a lifetime’s work even to understand one of them. So I don’t see why it would be ‘very easy’ for people in the 16th-18th centuries to produce their work. Did these fabricators write as a team? Then one person would have to write the works of Plato, in ancient Greek. After they had finished, another would have to write the works of Plato, also in ancient Greek. Then someone, acting as Boethius, would ‘translate’ the works of Aristotle into Latin, as well as Boethius’ extensive commentaries on Aristotle. Another team would be working in Syriac and Arabic and Latin to reproduce the translations of Aristotle into Syriac, then into Arabic, finally into Latin to get the Latin versions of Aristotle that the ‘early’ Western writers relied on, ‘not having’ Aristotle in the original Greek. (I put the scare quotes in because in fact the team did have all the works of Aristotle to hand, but were pretending that the early Western scholastic team did not have the Greek version used by the Aristotle team).
> 
> ...


It might seem "impossible" to fabricate all of this, but they have perfected the art of falsification. 

Their number one trick is redefining words. By redefining words, you will change the future understanding of the historical books. They do this today every single day in front of our eyes and they gladly admit it. 50 years from now, the old definition will be remembered by a few experts and with time the old definitions will be forgotten, but then the new definition will shape the old documents that didn't use this definition. An example from this forum is tartar/mongol. 
Those that hold on to the old knowledge, gets their family line purged. Those that repeat the new narrative, gets promoted and receive great titles of social worth and status.  

Another trick is the spotlight trick. It is very similar to how you combat the spread of covid, and I am certain that they will use what they learn from the pandemic to contain and quarentine the spread of unwanted ideas. The primary method is exposure and the secondary method is discreditting and the third method is substitution. You might have a library of 2000 books, but if only 10 carefully selected books are read and the other quarentined, then your narrative prevails. If someone stumbles upon a book and this book has a page that contradict one of these carefully selectd books, then you are silenced, misrepresented etc. Afterwards the title of the book is substituted with another work of the same name. 

And it is so easy for them because of a principle called asymmetry. It takes no effort to fabricate things, but it requires quite a lot of work to debunk it. While you're working to expose their lies about A from 30 years ago, they are already in the process of creating a new narrative that they will teach to millions if not billions of people. Many of whom will go on to produce great works based on this new narrative that is everything that they know about the world-- they might run into a weirdo talking about A from 30 years ago, but no one really listens to that guy and while some of what he is saying might have some weight to it, it doesn't fit with everything else that "we know". You'll have 1000s of books about the new narrative and a single work of debunking from a discreditted person that didn't even have any formel education or recognition from the wider community. Many of his facts also can't be verified now 200 years later. 

How do I know this is how they operate? Because we see it in real time before our eyes. The best examples are from social media where entire pages of information just gets wiped the moment it gains any traction of importance. Suddenly, years of work is gone, the people put on a watch list, and then the wheel spins. 
History is even worse than the news, because at least we have the possibility to fairly easily get alternative sources of information before they get purged by those in power. History has already been purged and fabricated.

How many of those books are contemporaries and go against the political power of the day?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 12, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> It might seem "impossible" to fabricate all of this, but they have perfected the art of falsification.
> 
> Their number one trick is redefining words.



I didn't say anything about redefining words. I was talking about writing words and writing (or printing) whole books. I own some of these works, so I know they exist. There is no falsification.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 12, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I didn't say anything about redefining words. I was talking about writing words and writing (or printing) whole books. I own some of these works, so I know they exist. There is no falsification.



The purpose of redefining words is that you do not have to write thousands of books to support your new narrative. It has already been written and you suddenly have thousands of books supporting your case.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 13, 2021)

Out of curiosity, when were these works of Ockham's "re-discovered"?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Out of curiosity, when were these works of Ockham's "re-discovered"?



Good question, but let’s start with what was rediscovered. There are the original manuscripts lying around in monastery collections and libraries. I mentioned some of them above. Then there are the early printed editions, such as (for Ockham’s commentary on the Sentences) here https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auc...usic-2/william-of-ockham-super-quattor-libros, published by Trechsel, November 1495.


Early (i.e. 19C) medievalists relied on early printed material for the most part. Scotus and Aquinas were never ‘lost’, because they were orthodox catholics. Below is the front page of Wadding’s famous 1639 edition. However Ockham was a heretic and his works never achieved much attention before the mid 19C. C.S. Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) studied him, but he was not really ‘rediscovered’ until the work of E.A. Moody Ernest Addison Moody - Wikipedia and Boehner Philotheus Boehner - Wikipedia .


----------



## Daniel (Jun 13, 2021)

So, the famous "14th century" person can be traced back to 1495. (If that is genuine).

Otherwise, we have a 1639 date.

Of course, if Johnson et al are indeed correct, then there is no way this "Friar" could have been writing about Christian issues centuries before modern Christianity ever existed.

Most likely the 1639 edition is genuine. The "1495" one throws up a red flag for anyone who's looked into the issue of Chronology, as no one in "1495" would have known that it was 1495.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

Daniel said:


> So, the famous "14th century" person can be traced back to 1495. (If that is genuine).
> 
> Otherwise, we have a 1639 date.



You are confusing the 1495 edition, which is Ockham, with the 1639 edition, which is Scotus. The 1639 edition clearly states who the author is. 



> Of course, if Johnson et al are indeed correct, then there is no way this "Friar" could have been writing about Christian issues centuries before modern Christianity ever existed.



However they are not correct, as I stated above, and as is clear from what they say. On the ‘Christian issues’, there is a whole genre of medieval writing on the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard. This Wiki article gives you a flavour. Sentences - Wikipedia , but it is a very large subject.



> Most likely the 1639 edition is genuine. The "1495" one throws up a red flag for anyone who's looked into the issue of Chronology, as no one in "1495" would have known that it was 1495.



You are very fond of making claims without any evidence. Let’s have some evidence that the 1495 edition (of Ockham) is a fake, or that the printers in 1495 did not know it was 1495.

Remember also that we have a VERY large number of manuscript versions of the works of Ockham.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

One example of bogus history from Fomenko's _History: fiction or science? Vol. 3 _(chapter 11, paragraph 7.1, page 304) regarding Copernicus (http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-4.pdf):


> Apparently, “unfortunately, his [Copernicus’s – Auth.] oldest biographies already date from the XVII century; we shall mention two of their lot – the book of Simon Starowolski and that of Pierre Gassendi” ([44], page 8). See also Gassendi’s book ([1152]). This means that the first biographies of Copernicus were written in the epoch of Johannes Kepler the earliest. Moreover, “even the year of his birth remains dubious to date. Most biographers accept 19 February (old style) 1473 as the most likely date. It is based on the testimony of Michael Maestlin, Kepler’s teacher” ([44], page 8). However, a more in-depth acquaintance with “Maestlin’s testimony” reveals the following circumstance, which is rather odd. Apparently,*“Maestlin reports that Copernicus was born on 19 February 1473, at 4:48 PM” ([44], page 8). It has to be borne in mind that the minute hand did not yet exist on XV century clocks.*


The bibliography is here (ЛИТЕРАТУРА. Список книг и нумерация едины для цикла книг по Новой Хронологии.).

Obviously the answer could be something like this: "Maestlin was not well informed and _we_ the historians have already corrected him by removing the minute (and also the hour so that we don't risk anything)". This answer is invalid because there is a tendency to remove what is considered inconvenient by not mentioning it, relegating it to footnotes or erasing it in the process of copying/printing.

How could Maestlin (Michael Maestlin - Wikipedia) know all of this?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

> "Maestlin reports that Copernicus was born on 19 February 1473, at 4:48 PM” ([44], page 8). It has to be borne in mind that the minute hand did not yet exist on XV century clocks.


What is the source for that quotation?

Note that 48 mins is exactly 4/5 of an hour, but I agree the precision of the date is odd. But again, who is making this claim about Maestlin?


[EDIT] Oh I see. From _Speculum astrologiae_, Francesco Giuntini, who is mentioned elsewhere in connection with Gassendi. The clue is the other dates and (exact) times given. Giuntini is drawing up a horoscope, enough said.







[EDIT] See “Bernardino Baldi and his two Biographies of Copernicus”, Erna Hilfstein, The Polish Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1979). Hilfstein says that Baldi’s Life of Copernicus is the earliest extant biography.  An extract from her translation into English:



> His birthplace was a major city built on the banks of the said river. The name of the city was Torona, or, according to others, Toruna. Hence he was called Torunneo"and not Torinese, as some have it.
> 
> His horoscope is analyzed by Francesco Giuntini in his [commentary on] Ptolemy's Quadripartitum. Now Giuntini says that Copernicus had Mercury at the beginning of the Ram. The moon at 7° within the Archer was located in the trine aspect with respect to Mercury. These configurations foretold the excellence of his mind. This is revealed, Giuntini says, by the work which Copernicus left in the field of mathematics, since he was an exceptional astronomer and, as Giuntini says, a German Ptolemy. From the stars which were tending westward Copernicus' great desire for learning and perseverance in his studies were inferred. These charac¬teristics were strengthened by the situation of Venus in sextile aspect with Mercury, Venus being reinforced by the friendly rays of the moon. Hence it came to pass that Copernicus was among the greatest astronomers of our time. All this is said by Giuntini, whose statement we accept with all the required reserve. According to that same Giuntini, Copernicus was born in the above-mentioned place, in the year of salvation 1473,19 February, 4:38 p.m. However, not recalling what he had written in the said passage, in his Astronomical Calendar Giuntini says that Copernicus was born one year earlier on 19 January, 4:48 p.m.



Historians say: always go back to sources. Fomenko (his reference [88]) seems to be citing some journalist's article.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

> Note that 48 mins is exactly 4/5 of an hour, but I agree the precision of the date is odd. But again, who is making this claim about Maestlin?


Gassendi is the one who makes the claim, as reported in the passage I quoted.



> [EDIT] Oh I see. From _Speculum astrologiae_, Francesco Giuntini, who is mentioned elsewhere in connection with Gassendi. The clue is the other dates and (exact) times given. Giuntini is drawing up a horoscope, enough said.


It is not enough at all! This shows how unreliable is chronology and those who came up with the dates on your books! _*Speculum astrologiae *_*was published in 1573, the world's first minute hand was invented in 1577 by Jost Bürgi!!!*

According to this book (https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Copernicus-And-His-World.pdf, page 3) another guy did something similar way before:


> The astrologer Garceus put the birth of Copernicus at 4 :30 P .M. of February 10, 1473


EDIT: It seems that 10 February was acceptable in the XVI century!

Even if we accept what Hilfstein says (which is just an opinion) then:


> According to that same Giuntini, Copernicus was born in the above-mentioned place, in the year of salvation 1473,19 February, 4:38 p.m. *However, not recalling what he had written in the said passage, in his Astronomical Calendar Giuntini says that Copernicus was born one year earlier on 19 January, 4:48 p.m.*


When bogus opinions made by someone with a title become History!!! There is no proof at all for this sort of explanation. *"Not recalling what he had written in the said passage" *means BOGUS. I'm sorry @Grosseteste but this kind of arguments have nothing scientific about it. It's just the delusional attempt to explain something it's not possible to understand.

So, how could these guys give the minute if the minutes didn't exist?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

Sorry but please read more carefully. The source I was quoting was not Hilfstein but “An extract from her translation [of Baldi's history] into English”, as I said above. She also claims that Baldi’s Life of Copernicus is the earliest extant biography.

So here are the four characters:

Francesco Guintini (1523-1590)
Michael Maestlin (1550 –1631)
Bernardino Baldi (1553 –1617)
Pierre Gassendi (1592- 1655) 

Gassendi writes:


> Nicolaus Copernicus was bom at Torunn or Torun, commonly called Tom, which was a large and well-known fortified city in Borussia, and once famous for its market. And although Iunctinus claims Copernicus was bom in the year 1472, the 19th day of January, at 4:38pm; Maestlinus says it is a mistake, because he would rather be bom in the year 1473, the 19th day of February (which was Venus day, before the Chair of Saint Peter's) at 4:48 pm, which seems more reasonable and plausible, considering Maestlinus' authority.



So you see his source is Maestlin, and you notice that the time given by Maestlin is actually the same as the second time given (according to Baldi) by Guintini.

On Baldi’s statement “not recalling what he had written in the said passage” and see also “whose statement (Guintini’s) we accept with all the required reserve”, you can see that Baldi is being mischievous, insinuating that we should take Guintini’s work with a generous pinch of salt. 

Recall that Guintini is not a historian but an astrologer, but happened to be the only source available to later historians. A good historian will therefore hunt down all the available sources, excluding what is obviously posterior, and take the best they can get. (And will indicate where necessary how reliable the sources are).

On when the minute hand was invented, that is irrelevant. Guintini was an astrologer, and was obviously making up nonsense using astrological charts. 



> When bogus opinions made by someone with a title become History!!!



You are confusing a bogus source with bogus history. _All_ historians recognise that some historical sources are dubious, or fraudulent. That does not mean that all historical sources are dubious, or fraudulent, or that by combining multiple sources we cannot approach the truth.

Fomenko’s ‘history’ is the most dubious in my view. He failed to hunt down the proper sources, and thus failed to understand the significance of the two times given, also the significance of the ‘minutes’ claim.



> So, how could these guys give the minute if the minutes didn't exist?


See above. Both of the 'minutes' claim come from Guintini the astrologer.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Sorry but please read more carefully. The source I was quoting was not Hilfstein but “An extract from her translation [of Baldi's history] into English”, as I said above. She also claims that Baldi’s Life of Copernicus is the earliest extant biography.





Grosseteste said:


> On Baldi’s statement “not recalling what he had written in the said passage” and see also “whose statement (Guintini’s) we accept with all the required reserve”, you can see that Baldi is being mischievous, insinuating that we should take Guintini’s work with a generous pinch of salt.


Sorry, but I think it is you who are not understanding what I said (because of my bad English? mmmmh). I never said it was Hilfstein opinion. It was implied by the quote of what you posted that my comment on the historian was towards Baldi, who was not "mischevious" by the way, but simply didn't understand the issue at hand and came up with a BOGUS explanation.



Grosseteste said:


> On when the minute hand was invented, that is irrelevant. Guintini was an astrologer, and was obviously making up nonsense using astrological charts.





> See above. Both of the 'minutes' claim come from Guintini the astrologer.


I will repeat the issue at hand. The minute hand was _invented_ in 1577, but Guintini reports various dates with minutes on his work from 1573, THEREFORE according to conventional chronology we have an impossible anachronism here. This is not an opinion. I really think you are not understanding what is the problem.



Grosseteste said:


> Recall that Guintini is not a historian but an astrologer, but happened to be the only source available to later historians. A good historian will therefore hunt down all the available sources, excluding what is obviously posterior, and take the best they can get. (And will indicate where necessary how reliable the sources are).





> You are confusing a bogus source with bogus history. _All_ historians recognise that some historical sources are dubious, or fraudulent. That does not mean that all historical sources are dubious, or fraudulent, or that by combining multiple sources we cannot approach the truth.


This is not good historiography, quite the opposite! As I said, there is a tendency to remove what is considered inconvenient by not mentioning it, relegating it to footnotes or erasing it in the process of copying/printing. A source becomes unreliable only in the fringe of an incorrect chronology. Guintini didn't know anything about minutes.
The number of unreliable books, authors and even single phrases inside "reliable" authors is off the charts.



Grosseteste said:


> Fomenko’s ‘history’ is the most dubious in my view. He failed to hunt down the proper sources, and thus failed to understand the significance of the two times given, also the significance of the ‘minutes’ claim.


We are not talking about "Fomenko's history", we are talking about the unscientific chronology that came down to us from antiquity. Fomenko has shown a huge number of inconsistencies and tried to reconstruct a more truthful history, but since he is not a historian, I think his final reconstruction is doubtful.

Nonetheless his work of deconstruction of current chronology is to be taken in great consideration, as Florin Diacu has told to historians (without being listened) https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201304/201304-full-issue.pdf.

I want to remind you that essay by Nosovsky in which he demonstrates how the Council of Nicaea could NOT happen in 325 AD A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating (pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405).

EDIT: By the way, the Guintini's doc posted is litterally FULL of dates with minutes. Are historians on the verge to claim that this is an unreliable source as they always do when the source comes into conflict with the accepted non-scientific unproven chronology? Will historians say that this book, _Speculum astrologiae, (and only this book by the way, obviously!!!) _was really from a different time period? Will there be no chronological ripercussions by simply erasing, changing and manipulating original historiography?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I never said it was Hilfstein opinion.


Yes you did. You said


> Even if we accept _what Hilfstein says_ (which is just an opinion) then:


The only quote I gave was from Baldi, in Hilfstein’s _translation_. 

The rest of what you say is just ranting.


----------



## JohnNada (Jun 13, 2021)

Just to play devil’s advocate, it appears that the unit of measure of a minute was around before the invention of a device to show it(the minute hand)... Doesn’t explain how a precise unit of measure was reached when portraying the time of birth of some of the folks mentioned above, but still something to ponder.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> Just to play devil’s advocate, it appears that the unit of measure of a minute was around before the invention of a device to show it(the minute hand)... Doesn’t explain how a precise unit of measure was reached when portraying the time of birth of some of the folks mentioned above, but still something to ponder.



Correct. Al-Biruni (in c. 1000AD) first subdivided the hour minutes (and seconds).

Giuntini was an astrologer and needed the precise time to determine the proper horoscope. One suspects an element of invention, as Baldi suggests.

Some birth dates are inaccurate. Does that mean all birth dates are inaccurate?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

JohnNada said:


> Just to play devil’s advocate, it appears that the unit of measure of a minute was around before the invention of a device to show it(the minute hand)... Doesn’t explain how a precise unit of measure was reached when portraying the time of birth of some of the folks mentioned above, but still something to ponder.


The word was around but it meant something different, even if related to time measure. They probably kept the word giving it a new meaning in the new contest. The important thing to understand though is that you cannot perceive minute 48 (or 38, 14, 20...) without the minute hand, which came to be in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini's Speculum astrologiae of 1573.



Grosseteste said:


> Yes you did. You said
> 
> The only quote I gave was from Baldi, in Hilfstein’s _translation_.
> 
> The rest of what you say is just ranting.


I already told you what the comment meant. It is up to you to accept it.

And no. It is not ranting, unless by this word you mean a logical and undisputable fact: you cannot perceive minute 48 (or 38, 14, 20...) without the minute hand, which came to be in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini's Speculum astrologiae of 1573.



Grosseteste said:


> Correct. Al-Biruni (in c. 1000AD) first subdivided the hour minutes (and seconds).
> 
> Giuntini was an astrologer and needed the precise time to determine the proper horoscope. One suspects an element of invention, as Baldi suggests.
> 
> Some birth dates are inaccurate. Does that mean all birth dates are inaccurate?


This is as bogus as you can get. Every astronomer can tell you that time measure depends on the technical equipment you use. Talking about 60 minutes before the invention of the hand minute would have been like talking about unicorns and dragons (which are probably more true than current chronology). Not to mention the seconds!!!!!!!!

EDIT: I am now waiting for some book called "Why Jost Bürgi could not invent the minute hand".


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 13, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is as bogus as you can get. Every astronomer can tell you that time measure depends on the technical equipment you use. Talking about 60 minutes before the invention of the hand minute would have been like talking about unicorns and dragons (which are probably more true than current chronology).



This would have been perfectly possible using an astrolabe, an instrument in use since at least the 13th century (Chaucer wrote a book on one. That would be consistent with Giuntini referring to the time in terms of the as the part of the day or night that had passed*. Indeed, clocks were not so reliable as the astrolabe for some time after his day.

*E.g. “min 35 post ortum solis” 35 minutes after sunrise.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> This would have been perfectly possible using an astrolabe, an instrument in use since at least the 13th century (Chaucer wrote a book on one. That would be consistent with Giuntini referring to the time in terms of the as the part of the day or night that had passed.


No it was not possible. You needed timekeeping devices with the required precision. It would be consistent in a fictional world where you can tell the difference between minutes without instruments to measure them.

The Swiss Jost Bürgi was the one who invented that device, the minute hand, in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini wrote about measurements that could not be measured without that device.

Astrolabes were not a precise timekeeping device.

EDIT: By the way, in the wiki for the astrolabe (Astrolabe - Wikipedia) the word "minute" never appears. In the wiki for the minute (Minute - Wikipedia) the word "astrolabe" never appears. Time to change the wikis to keep in line with the bogusness?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 14, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The Swiss Jost Bürgi was the one who invented that device, the minute hand, in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini wrote about measurements that could not be measured without that device.



Well if you are right, the date that Giuntini was writing is irrelevant because the measurement would have to have been taken in 1473, when Copernicus was born.

The whole question turns on how horoscopes were constructed. It's well beyond my own subject area, so I am going to consult someone who knows.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 14, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Well if you are right, the date that Giuntini was writing is irrelevant because the measurement would have to have been taken in 1473, when Copernicus was born.
> 
> The whole question turns on how horoscopes were constructed. It's well beyond my own subject area, so I am going to consult someone who knows.


IF Copernicus was born in "1473".


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 14, 2021)

From Chaucer's treatise on the astrolabe, written in 1391.


> The border is divided into 90 degrees from the little cross (+) to the end of the meridional line under the ring. Each quadrant of the astrolabe is also divided the same way. Numbers are engraved over the degrees to divide the scale in 5 degree sections as shown by the long strokes between the numbers. Each long stroke divides the scale into a mile-way [i.e. 20 _minutes_]  _and every degree represents 4 minutes of time_. The figure shows the scale.    A Treatise on the Astrolabe


----------



## Daniel (Jun 14, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> From Chaucer's treatise on the astrolabe, written in 1391.


Chaucer's works quote from the Pauline Epistles.
But, as Johnson demonstrated, the Pauline Epistles were only written in the "16th century".
Thus, as Chaucer quotes the Pauline Epistles, the works attributed to "Geoffrey Chaucer" could  not possibly have been written before the 16th century.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 14, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Well if you are right, the date that Giuntini was writing is irrelevant because the measurement would have to have been taken in 1473, when Copernicus was born.
> 
> The whole question turns on how horoscopes were constructed. It's well beyond my own subject area, so I am going to consult someone who knows.


You are neglecting the main issue in a thread called "chronology":
*The Swiss Jost Bürgi was the one who invented that device, the minute hand, in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini wrote about measurements that could not be measured without that device.*

This is not something to brush aside, since these datings are at the core of current chronology.

You cannot explain the use of minutes by saying "Oh well, it's an horoscope" or "what Giuntini did was irrelevant". *No one in the year 1473 had a clock to know the minute in which Copernicus was born!* In fact they didn't even care, as much as you don't care about your teleportation device since no one has a teleportation device!!! *And Giuntini could not use minutes for the same reason!*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, this has brought to my mind another unanswered post on the previous "Dating and Chronology". You said here Dating and Chronology:


> So for example Bede writes "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est." I.e. in 753on the 9th of January, there was an eclipse of the sun.
> 
> Using Mercier's software I can check this, and the software indeed confirms that there was an eclipse on that day.





​My answer here Dating and Chronology:


> The eclipse you have found is an annular one, with the sun passing through (roughly) the Atlantic, then France, Italy and so on. I have searched from what distance the annular eclipse is still visible. This is the result: how far an annular eclipse is visible - Google zoeken
> Around 150 km, therefore Bede could not see an annular eclipse that year, since England is at roughly 500 km from the path showed on the map (it is said that total and annular eclipses cover around 1% of the surface of the Earth).
> 
> That brings a question (suggested by Fomenko in his study): what eclipses should be considered as legit to prove something?
> ...



I asked you to show me the Lunar eclipse happening the same day and the presumed Solar eclipse (apparently total) of year 733 AD. If you want!

Here below the text with the quote "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est." ([Bede: Continuatio]) with the Lunar eclipse next to it underlined in blue and the Solar eclipse in red.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 15, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You are neglecting the main issue in a thread called "chronology":
> *The Swiss Jost Bürgi was the one who invented that device, the minute hand, in 1577, 4 years after Giuntini wrote about measurements that could not be measured without that device.*
> 
> This is not something to brush aside, since these datings are at the core of current chronology.
> ...



Perhaps you didn’t notice my post above about the 1 degree on an astrolabe equalling 4 minutes? The use of minutes was well understood, and measurable, long before Giuntini. You objected earlier that the astrolabe is not accurate enough, but you were wrong.

Regarding the lunar eclipse, there was one on Jan 24 753 (= 9 kal feb), with a solar eclipse earlier in the same month on 5 ides Jan (i.e 9 jan).


----------



## Safranek (Jun 15, 2021)

And as far as telling time to the minute goes, lets not forget about this little gem:
Konarak India sun dial clocks, carved rock temple, UNESCO moon dial​
_View: https://youtu.be/RXB_qjc3g9w?t=270_


Yes, it has been telling time to the accuracy of 1 minute for 1300 years.



> "The current Konark temple dates to the 13th century, though evidence suggests that a sun temple was built in the Konark area by at least the 9th century.[59]"



Konark Sun Temple - Wikipedia

Strange how the wiki article doesn't mention the sun/moon dials.

Draw you own conclusions.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 15, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Perhaps you didn’t notice my post above about the 1 degree on an astrolabe equalling 4 minutes? The use of minutes was well understood, and measurable, long before Giuntini. You objected earlier that the astrolabe is not accurate enough, but you were wrong.


Not accurate enough to measure time minute by minute.

You posted here (Chronology) the translation from Baldi’s Life of Copernicus:


> His horoscope is analyzed by Francesco Giuntini in his [commentary on] Ptolemy's Quadripartitum. Now Giuntini says that Copernicus had Mercury at the beginning of the Ram. The moon at 7° within the Archer was located in the trine aspect with respect to Mercury. These configurations foretold the excellence of his mind. This is revealed, Giuntini says, by the work which Copernicus left in the field of mathematics, since he was an exceptional astronomer and, as Giuntini says, a German Ptolemy. From the stars which were tending westward Copernicus' great desire for learning and perseverance in his studies were inferred. These charac¬teristics were strengthened by the situation of Venus in sextile aspect with Mercury, Venus being reinforced by the friendly rays of the moon. Hence it came to pass that Copernicus was among the greatest astronomers of our time. All this is said by Giuntini, whose statement we accept with all the required reserve. According to that same Giuntini, Copernicus was born in the above-mentioned place, in the year of salvation 1473,19 February, *4:38 p.m.* However, not recalling what he had written in the said passage, in his Astronomical Calendar Giuntini says that Copernicus was born one year earlier on 19 January, 4:48 p.m.


And you also posted an excerpt from Speculum astrologiae by Francesco Giuntini (of which I've underlined in blue the most interesting parts):



Aside the supposedly "corrected" minute of Copernicus' birth (minute 48) *all the other minutes reported are not multiples of 4!!! *Since the hand minute was not yet invented, it was not possible to obtain minute 38, 30, 9 (novem), 35, 31, 23, 53 and 30 again!



Grosseteste said:


> Well if you are right, the date that Giuntini was writing is irrelevant because the measurement would have to have been taken in 1473, when Copernicus was born.


Can you really imagine the presence of a professional who could use one of the most advanced devices of that epoch (the astrolabe) at the birth of a complete stranger? Was Copernicus a sort of Messiah and the astronomers his Magi Kings?



Grosseteste said:


> Correct. Al-Biruni (in c. 1000AD) first subdivided the hour minutes (and seconds).


You are talking about minutes and seconds of arc (Minute and second of arc - Wikipedia) which are different from minutes and seconds (Minute - Wikipedia - Second - Wikipedia).


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Not accurate enough to measure time minute by minute.



That's the crux of it. I said earlier I would ask an expert, i.e. someone who understand how horoscopes were constructed in the medieval and renaissance period, and I will do that when I have time.



> You are talking about minutes and seconds of arc (Minute and second of arc - Wikipedia) which are different from minutes and seconds (Minute - Wikipedia - Second - Wikipedia).


I know they are different, but which of the two did Al-Burani introduce, in your view?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 16, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> That's the crux of it. I said earlier I would ask an expert, i.e. someone who understand how horoscopes were constructed in the medieval and renaissance period, and I will do that when I have time.


You can do as you please but for me it's settled. There was no way to count singular minutes and every "explanation" is just an opinion. There are no "experts" who can substitute objective reality (no devices for the counting of minutes) with their word.
I say this because I see where we are going and I have no intention to listen to "explanations" like "The horoscopes were made up by people who told everyone they knew how to count minutes even without appropriate devices". Don't buy that thing. Sorry!
(Yes, I know that I am a little prejudiced, but I have already read "explanations" like these multiple times. Sorry again)



Grosseteste said:


> I know they are different, but which of the two did Al-Burani introduce, in your view?


I don't know if this Al-Burani guy was the one to introduce them because that would require some faith in copied documents. But reading your source (the link doesn't work anymore - A Treatise on the Astrolabe) and confronting the information given (with the help of the notes) and infos on the internet it is clear that we are talking about arcminutes. In particular a degree amounts to 60 arcminutes and since a degree is the sum of 4 minutes, then every minute contains 15 arcminutes. Here (1992JBAA..102...25T Page 25) an astronomer says that the _*error *_of the astrolabes amounted to a degree, therefore 4 minutes.

As for the introduction of the minute there is no doubt it was introduced by Jost Burgi, who was the first to determine it through a mechanical device. But from the theoretical point of view it was probably known since "ancient" times (not so ancient according to Nosovsky, of which you should read his dating of the Council of Nicaea - A.FOMENKO. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating pages 390 - 401 and 401 - 405). It is said that in Babylon some advanced mathematics were developed in base 60. That must be the origin of the minute (theoretically speaking). But in the end I don't know. It just seems logical to me.

Do you know some other link to Chaucer's description of the astrolabe?

EDIT: @Grosseteste the link works again. Thanks


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You can do as you please but for me it's settled. There was no way to count singular minutes and every "explanation" is just an opinion.


I'm with you or should that say silveryou!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Chaucer's works quote from the Pauline Epistles.
> But, as Johnson demonstrated, the Pauline Epistles were only written in the "16th century".
> Thus, as Chaucer quotes the Pauline Epistles, the works attributed to "Geoffrey Chaucer" could  not possibly have been written before the 16th century.



That’s interesting. The _Canterbury Tales_ is in Middle English, which in conventional dating was spoken from the 11th to the late 15 th century. In new chronology, middle English and modern English must have been spoken (and written) at the same time in the 16th century. Also Old English. See the manuscript below (Cotton MS Vespasian A I) which is conventionally dated to the second quarter of the 8th century, with an Old English translation added in the mid-9th century. Conventional dating (and conventional dictionaries) have a neat explanation of how old English evolved into Middle English, and how modern English evolved with the addition of Latin terms around the 15th century. The New History explanation would have to be much more complex and difficult.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Key words "in conventional dating".

And even people who follow the conventional dating dispute whether such a thing as "Middle English" ever existed.

Of course, just because we have something written down, doesn't mean it was ever spoken.

What's more, "conventional dating's" explanation for how Old English morphed into Middle English, and then Middle English became Modern English is laughable.

How can we explain the differences between Chaucer and Bacon? Very easily.

As Johnson quoted FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, in the 16th century, Roman letters were still newly arrived in the British Isles. Thus, people were just beginning to write.

At the same time, someone from Kent speaks very differently to someone from Sunderland, and both speak differently to someone from Edinburgh.

And, even today, people disagree about both spellings and pronunciations. Again, modern-day linguists TELL US how something was pronounced, but are there audio recordings to back that up? No.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Of course, just because we have something written down, doesn't mean it was ever spoken.



Languages used in medieval documents - The University of Nottingham



In englysch tonge I schal you telle
Yif ye so longe with me wil dwelle
Ne latyn wil I speke ne waste
Bot englisch that men usen maste
For that is youre kynde langage
That ye have most here of usage
That kan eche man understonde
That is boren in engelonde
For that langage is most schewed
As wel among lered as lewed
Latyn as I trowe can nane
Bot thoo that have it at scole tane
Somme kan frensch and no latyn
That used have court and dwelled therin
And somme kan of latyn a party
That kan frensch ful febelly
And somme understonden englysch
That kan nouther latyn ne frensch
Bot lered and lewed olde and yonge
Alle understonden englysch tongeI’ll tell you in English
If you’ll stay with me long enough.
I won’t speak or waste Latin,
But I’ll speak English, that people use most,
Since that is your native language
That you have most in use here,
Which each person can understand
Who was born in England.
For that language is most in evidence
Both among the educated and the uneducated.
I believe no-one knows Latin
Unless they’ve taken it at school.
Some know French and not Latin
Who have frequented the court and lived in it.
And some know a bit of Latin
Who know French very poorly.
Some understand English
Who know neither Latin nor French.
But educated and uneducated, old and young,
All understand the English tongue.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Languages used in medieval documents - The University of Nottingham
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note the way words are altered though. Such as "dwelle" becoming 'stay', rather than the obvious 'dwell'.

In fact, we still gave that sort of thing now. Program or programme? Ton or tonne? What's that? Post-Modern English?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Note the way words are altered though. Such as "dwelle" becoming 'stay', rather than the obvious 'dwell'.



Perhaps you are forgetting that the modern English version in the RH column is merely someone's translation. Old Norse _dvelja_ means ‘delay, tarry, stay’. It could just as easily have been translated as modern English 'dwell'.

My point in posting that was that the writer is referring not just to written language, but to spoken language also, and I was replying to your suggestion that these languages were written only.



Daniel said:


> As Johnson quoted FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, in the 16th century, Roman letters were still newly arrived in the British Isles. Thus, people were just beginning to write.



Can you give me a precise citation from Johnson please. What do you mean 'Roman letters'? Do you mean alphabet, or language?


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Perhaps you are forgetting that the modern English version in the RH column is merely someone's translation. Old Norse _dvelja_ means ‘delay, tarry, stay’. It could just as easily have been translated as modern English 'dwell'.
> 
> My point in posting that was that the writer is referring not just to written language, but to spoken language also, and I was replying to your suggestion that these languages were written only.


Indeed. "Merely someone's translation", "could just as easily have been translated as".

And I never really said that. The first example that comes into my head of what I said is sadly the Star Trek character Nerys. Now, I know how that's pronounced, as Nerys Hughes. And yet the Trek people say it as "Nah-reece". So, we have something spelled one way, yet pronounced wildly differently by different people.

At the same time, as Englush writing was still novel, a spoken sound could have been written very differently by different people trying to record the sounds in letters. To say nothing if regional pronunciations.

When was English spelling unified(or a major attempt at it anyway)?

When was the first English dictionary/lexicon?

Will future people consider American English to come from a different ERA from RP? Or simply another region? (And as to the misunderstanding, how "natural" is RP anyway? Or Mid-Atlantic?)

Different time periods, or simply different people from a roughly contemporaneous era?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Johnson’s whole case rests on the assumption that there is no manuscript evidence for writings about Paul before the 16th century.



> There is not a particle of evidence which leads us to doubt the statement that, before the time of John Colet, neither the people of London, nor of any part of England, nor even the monks themselves, could have known anything of the Epistles of Paul. (Chapter 9: John Leland on British Writers)



As I pointed out earlier, none of the manuscript evidence was _easily_ available to Johnson in the 19th century (although he might have looked harder, in my view – it was all ‘there’).

As an example, see Vat. Lat. 833 containing Scotus’s _Ordinatio_, which we can confidently date to around 1300.  Screenshot below is 95va https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.883 where he quotes Paul's letter to the Romans.



Contra: Rom. 9: Cum nondum nati essent, aut egissent quidquam boni vel mali, ut secundum propositum electio gratiae remaneret, - quaere ibi.3. On the contrary: Romans (9.11-13): “Although they were not yet born, or had done anything good or bad, so that the election of grace might remain according to his purpose,” – look there.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

How can we "confidently" date it to around 1300?

And Johnson was not referring to his own era
 He was going on the documentary evidence from the "16th century".

And Romans is sadly the death blow to your case. Romans 15 in particular.

(** I'll add more later, when I'm on PC. But read Romans 15:24-28 very closely.

Then ask yourself "What didn't exist before the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella?')


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Johnson’s whole case rests on the assumption that there is no manuscript evidence for writings about Paul before the 16th century.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is quoting Romans, but this is not proof that 1300 Romans = 1600 Romans, nor that 1600 romans existed earlier, nor that Paul existed earlier.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> He is quoting Romans, but this is not proof that 1300 Romans = 1600 Romans, nor that 1600 romans existed earlier, nor that Paul existed earlier.





Daniel said:


> How can we "confidently" date it to around 1300?



Scotus mentions the date of 1300 in that same work, and there is other corroborating evidence. You can say that he is falsifying the date, and you can claim that all the corroborating evidence is faked, I have no doubt.



Daniel said:


> And Romans is sadly the death blow to your case. Romans 15 in particular.
> 
> (** I'll add more later, when I'm on PC. But read Romans 15:24-28 very closely.
> 
> Then ask yourself "What didn't exist before the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella?')



In NT Greek ὡς ἂν πορεύωμαι εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν

Σπανία , Ἱσπανία, the whole peninsula south of the Pyrenees, Latin Hispania. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854), HABESSUS, HISPA´NIA

Your point is what?

{EDIT] Strabo Strabo,  Geography, book 3, chapter 4, section 19




τινὲς μὲν οὖν εἰς τέτταρα μέρη διῃρῆσθαί φασι τὴν χώραν ταύτην, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, ἄλλοι δὲ πενταμερῆ λέγουσιν. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ τἀκριβὲς ἐν τούτοις ἀποδιδόναι διὰ τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ τὴν ἀδοξίαν τῶν τόπων. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς γνωρίμοις καὶ ἐνδόξοις αἵ τε μεταναστάσεις γνώριμοι καὶ οἱ μερισμοὶ τῆς χώρας καὶ αἱ μεταβολαὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο παραπλήσιον: θρυλεῖται γὰρ ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ μάλιστα τῶν Ἑλλήνων1. ὅσα δὲ καὶ βάρβαρα καὶ ἐκτετοπισμένα καὶ μικρόχωρα καὶ διεσπασμένα, τούτων ὑπομνήματα οὔτ᾽ ἀσφαλῆ ἐστιν οὔτε πολλά: ὅσα δὲ δὴ πόρρω τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐπιτείνει τὴν ἄγνοιαν. οἱ δὲ τῶν Ῥωμαίων συγγραφεῖς μιμοῦνται μὲν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπὶ πολύ: καὶ γὰρ ἃ λέγουσι παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων μεταφέρουσιν, ἐξ ἑαυτῶν δ᾽ οὐ πολὺ μὲν προσφέρονται τὸ φιλείδημον ὥσθ᾽, ὁπόταν ἔλλειψις γένηται παρ᾽ ἐκείνων, οὐκ ἔστι πολὺ τὸ ἀναπληρούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων, ἄλλως τε καὶ τῶν [p. 226] ὀνομάτων, ὅσα ἐνδοξότατα, τῶν πλείστων ὄντων Ἑλληνικῶν: ἐπεὶ καὶ Ἰβηρίαν ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν προτέρων καλεῖσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν ἔξω τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἰσθμοῦ τοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατικῶν κόλπων σφιγγομένου, οἱ δὲ νῦν ὅριον αὐτῆς τίθενται τὴν Πυρήνην, συνωνύμως τε τὴν αὐτὴν Ἰβηρίαν λέγουσι καὶ Ἱσπανίαν: ἄλλοι δ᾽ Ἰβηρίαν μόνην ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐντὸς τοῦ Ἴβηρος: οἱ δ᾽ ἔτι πρότερον αὐτοὺς τούτους Ἰγλῆτας, οὐ πολλὴν χώραν νεμομένους, ὥς φησιν Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Μυρλεανός. Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ τὴν σύμπασαν καλέσαντες συνωνύμως Ἰβηρίαν τε καὶ Ἱσπανίαν τὸ μὲν αὐτῆς μέρος εἶπον τὴν ἐκτὸς τὸ δὲ ἕτερον τὴν ἐντός: ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἄλλως διαιροῦσι πρὸς τοὺς καιροὺς πολιτευόμενοι.Some, as I have said, state that this country is separated into four divisions; others, into five. It is not easy to state any thing precisely on these points, both on account of the changes which the places have undergone, and by reason of their obscurity. In well-known and notable countries both the migrations are known, and the divisions of the land, and the changes of their names, and every thing else of the same kind. Such matters being the common topics with everybody, and especially with the Greeks, who are more talkative than any other people. But in barbarous and out-of-the-way countries, and such as are cut up into small divisions, and lie scattered, the remembrance of such occurrences is not nearly so certain, nor yet so full. If these countries are far removed from the Greeks [our] ignorance is increased. For although the Roman historians imitate the Greeks, they fall far short of them. What they relate is taken from the Greeks, very little being the result of their own ardour in acquiring information. So that whenever any thing has been omitted by the former there is not much supplied by the latter. Add to this, that the names most celebrated are generally Grecian. Formerly the name of Iberia was given to the whole country between the Rhone and the isthmus formed by the two Galatic gulfs; whereas now they make the Pyrenees its boundary, and call it indifferently Iberia or Hispania; others have restricted Iberia to the country on this side the Ebro.1 Still earlier it bore the name of the Igletes,2 who inhabited but a small district, according to Asclepiades the Myrlean. The Romans call the whole indifferently Iberia and Hispania, but designate one portion of it Ulterior, and the other Citerior. However, at different periods they have divided it differently, according to its political aspect at various times.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

The Spanish Issue...

In the Book of Romans(15:24-28) Paul says


> 24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.
> 
> 25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
> 
> ...


Paul mentions "Spain" twice. But, and a seemingly straightforward question.. What exactly IS "Spain"?

Spain is NOT the Iberian Peninsula. Nor is it a form of the word 'Iberia' The word "Iberia", to refer to the entire peninsula, has existed for some time certainly.




Yes, there's also the obvious country of Portugal right there.
Is Spain linguist then?




Again, no. We see different languages, cutting across borders. In fact, the Basque language, which is both sides of the Franco-Spanish border isn't even an Indo-European language at all Not to mention modern "liberation" groups of Basques and Catalans. An unrecognized vote had Catalans voting for independence from Spain.
2017 Catalan independence referendum - Wikipedia

So, what then IS Spain? It's purely a POLITICAL notion. It does not follow natural topographic boundaries, it does not follow linguist boundaries. it is 100% about who controls a particular area of land at a particular time. In short, we can say
"Spain is the Iberian Peninsula, minus Portugal and Andorra, but also including some Mediterranean islands"
Why would anyone need such a specific definition? Would the ancient peoples have required such a definition? Of course not.
Note too, the obvious Mediaeval states such as Aragon, Castile etc. ie, NOT "Spain".
In fact, the first time ever that such a definition as "Spain"(and as outlined above) would be required was due to the marriage and subsequent union of states between Ferdinand and Isabella.




It's universally agreed that they married in "1469 AD", but did not begin to rule together their new united lands until "1479 AD".
As such, the very concept of "Spain" dates to the 15th century.
One interesting thing about the American Merriam-Webster Dictionary is that, in addition to giving us conventional definitions of words, it tells us when a certain term was first written in the English language.

Let's look at two common English-language words, shall we?
Definition of SPANISH

The "first known use" of the word "Spanish" is...the 15th century.

And what of Definition of SPANIARD

Yes, the first known use of the word "Spaniard" is likewise in the 15th century.

So, "Spain", "Spanish" and "Spaniard" are all FIFTEENTH-CENTURY concepts. None of them could possibly exist before the "15th century", and the wedding, and unification of lands, of Ferdinand and Isabella.

And yet, Paul, in the Book of Romans, mentions Spain twice. This is in perfect correspondence with Johnson, who demonstrates that the Pauline Epistles were written in the 16th century.

And ANYONE would quotes the Pauline Epistles could not possibly have written their works before the 16th century at the very earliest.

** As an aside, even the so-called "Old Testament" can be shown to be of late invention, along with certain "ancient traditions".

While considered apocryphal by Protestant Churches, the Books of Maccabees are part of the Catholic canon. In addition, the stories told therein are believed to describe the origin of the Jewish holiday Hannukah.

And yet, if we read 1 Maccabees 8,:3 we see..


> And how great things they had done in the land of Spain, and that they had brought under their power the mines of silver and of gold that are there, and had gotten possession of all the place by their counsel and patience:


Yes, 1 Maccabees 8 mentions "Spain" as well. Thus the Books of Maccabees could not possibly have been written before the late 15th century at the earliest.. Again, in perfect correspondence with Johnson,, Fomenko, and others.

Oh,, I almost forgot..

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. Book 19, Section 17:



> Now there were three several conspiracies made in order to take off Caius, and each of these three were conducted by excellent persons. Emilius Regulus, born at Corduba in Spain, got some men together, and was desirous to take Caius off, either by them or by himself.



Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Section 181:



> But when Caius was made Caesar, he released Agrippa from his bonds, and made him king of Philip's tetrarchy, who was now dead; but when Agrippa had arrived at that degree of dignity, he inflamed the ambitious desires of Herod the tetrarch, who was chiefly induced to hope for the royal authority by his wife Herodias, who reproached him for his sloth, and told him that it was only because he would not sail to Caesar that he was destitute of that great dignity; for since Caesar had made Agrippa a king, from a private person, much mole would he advance him from a tetrarch to that dignity. These arguments prevailed with Herod, so that he came to Caius, by whom he was punished for his ambition, by being banished into Spain; for Agrippa followed him, in order to accuse him; to whom also Caius gave his tetrarchy, by way of addition. So Herod died in Spain, whither his wife had followed him.
> --



Appian, Preface, Chapter 1



> These things have been described by many writers, both Greek and Roman, and the history is even more copious than that of the Macedonian empire, which was the longest history of earlier times. Being interested in it, and desiring to compare the Roman prowess carefully with that of every other nation, my history has often led me from Carthage to Spain, from Spain to Sicily or to Macedonia, or to join some embassy to foreign countries, or some alliance formed with them;



Appian, Syrian Wars, Chapter 2



> Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "To myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Spain and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules. I invaded Italy and struck terror into all of you, laid waste 400 of your towns, and often put your city in extreme peril, all this time receiving neither money nor reënforcements from Carthage."



Polybius, Histories, Book 1 Chapter 13:



> Next comes the Libyan or Mercenary war; immediately following on which are the Carthaginian achievements in Spain, first under Hamilcar, and then under Hasdrubal.



Strabo, Geography, Book 1 Chatper 1:



> [5] The Isles of the Blest are on the extreme west of Maurusia, near where its shore runs parallel to the opposite coast of Spain; and it is clear he considered these regions also Blest, from their contiguity to the Islands



Plutarch, Caesar, Chapter 11:



> Immediately after his praetorship Caesar received Spain as his province, and since he found it hard to arrange matters with his creditors, who obstructed his departure and were clamorous, he had recourse to Crassus, the richest of the Romans, who had need of Caesar's vigour and fire for his political campaign against Pompey.



Marcus Tullius Cicero, Against Verres, Book 1 Section 87:



> In this vessel they sailed to all the enemies of the Roman people, from Dianium, which is in Spain, to Senope, which is in Pontus.



Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Agrarian Law, Speech 1 Chapter 2:



> After that, that most excellent and productive land which belongs Corinth, which was added to the revenues of the Roman people by the campaigns and successes of Lucius Mummius. After that, they sell the lands in Spain near Carthagena, acquired by the distinguished valour of the two Scipios.



None of that could have been written before the late 15th century, at the very earliest.

(In fact, as Plutarch and Josephus both mention the Eruption of Vesuvius, and subsequent destruction of Pompeii in their other writings, those two most likely lived in the 17th century.)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

I quoted Strabo above, who is writing in Greek, as is Paul (assuming that the NT was originally written in Greek, rather than Aramaic).

All of your quotes are in English. Can you quote in the original language please? E.g. you write " "Spain", "Spanish" and "Spaniard" are all FIFTEENTH-CENTURY concepts." You mean words? English words?




> Yes, the first known use of the word "Spaniard" is likewise in the 15th century.
> 
> So, "Spain", "Spanish" and "Spaniard" are all FIFTEENTH-CENTURY concepts. None of them could possibly exist before the "15th century", and the wedding, and unification of lands, of Ferdinand and Isabella.
> 
> And yet, Paul, in the Book of Romans, mentions Spain twice.



Not correct. As I said above Σπανία , Ἱσπανία are Greek words for the Spanish peninsula, which were used in ancient times long before Ferdinand and Isabella.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I quoted Strabo above, who is writing in Greek, as is Paul (assuming that the NT was originally written in Greek, rather than Aramaic).
> 
> All of your quotes are in English. Can you quote in the original language please? E.g. you write " "Spain", "Spanish" and "Spaniard" are all FIFTEENTH-CENTURY concepts." You mean words? English words?


The very concept of something such as "Spain".
If something does not exist, and the very concept of it does not exist, there is no reason for a word to describe it to exist.
Why would we NEED a word to designate specifically "Spain"? It's not the same thing as the Iberian Peninsula, and it doesn't follow natural boundaries, it doesn't qualify regions by culture or by language. It's an entirely political concept.
And yes, we both quoted Strabo. Only I put it in the context of what it means for whoever penned the works attributed to "Strabo".

If I may, your entire case seems to rely upon "But [x] HAS to be that way, either the entire chronology is wrong". Perhaps the entire chronology is wrong...

And "Ancient times long before Ferdinand and Isabella"? Only IF you subscribe to the "conventional chronology". Sorry, that's not evidence,.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> The very concept of something such as "Spain".
> If something does not exist, and the very concept of it does not exist, there is no reason for a word to describe it to exist.
> Why would we NEED a word to designate specifically "Spain"? It's not the same thing as the Iberian Peninsula, and it doesn't follow natural boundaries, it doesn't qualify regions by culture or by language. It's an entirely political concept.
> And yes, we both quoted Strabo. Only I put it in the context of what it means for whoever penned the works attributed to "Strabo".
> ...



Your argument was, the words 'Spain', 'Spanish' etc (English words) did not exist before 15th century. Paul uses the word 'Spain', therefore the Epistles did not exist before 15th century. That argument is valid, but rests on a false premiss, namely that Paul uses the word 'Spain'. He did not use that word, because he (or the NT scribe) was not writing in English, but Greek.

Your English translation of Cicero gets it wrong. The text actually reads "hoc illi navigio ad omnis populi Romani". The stuff about 'Spain' is a translator's addition.



> Why would we NEED a word to designate specifically "Spain"? It's not the same thing as the Iberian Peninsula, and it doesn't follow natural boundaries, it doesn't qualify regions by culture or by language. It's an entirely political concept.


Wholly incorrect. The ancient Greek and Latin commentators used words (in their language) to describe the peninsula, long before Spain was politically united.

[EDIT] The translation you gave of Cicero De Lege Agraria is somewhat better. But he uses the word Hispania, not 'Spain'.



Deinde agrum optimum et fructuosissimum Corinthium qui L. Mummi imperio ac felicitate ad vectigalia populi Romani adiunctus est, post autem agros in Hispania apud Carthaginem novam duorum Scipionum eximia virtute possessosAfter that, that most excellent and productive land which belongs Corinth, which was added to the revenues of the Roman people by the campaigns and successes of Lucius Mummius. After that, they sell the lands in Spain near Carthagena, acquired by the distinguished valour of the two Scipios.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Spain is not the peninsula

IBERIA is the peninsula.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Spain is not the peninsula
> 
> IBERIA is the peninsula.



Yes the English word 'Spain' does not refer to the Peninsula. But you seem incapable of grasping that the NT was not written in English. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Regarding 1 Maccabees 8, that book is not canonical in the Hebrew, but we have a Greek version in the Septuagint, which reads:



> καὶ ὅσα ἐποίησαν ἐν χώρᾳ *Σπανίας* τοῦ κατακρατῆσαι τῶν μετάλλων τοῦ ἀργυρίου καὶ τοῦ χρυσίου τοῦ ἐκεῖ



Note word for the Iberian peninsula given in bold, in the Greek. Do you get it now?

[EDIT] You also have a much bigger problem. The ancient Roman who writes the most about Spain is Livy (_Ab Urbe Condita_ Liber XXI _et passim_). Livy: Book XXI

I concede my entire case if you can find a single reference in Livy to the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

I am perfectly capable of grasping it, and I have "got it" all along.

Again, how do you KNOW what language the Bible(any part of it) was written in?

Because that's what you are told. And what you were brought up on. But what if that was wrong.

No, i'm not saying the Bible was written in English.

But back to Merriam-Webster's
Definition of SEPTUAGINT
Septuagint was first used in 1566.

Definition of TORAH

Torah was first used in 1547.

Definition of TALMUD
Talmud was first used in 1532.
Definition of PASSOVER
Passover was first used in 1530.

Definition of APOCRYPHA
Apocrypha was first used in 1539
Definition of PENTATEUCH
Pentateuch was first used in the 15th century

Now, some of these words are obviously not of English origin, but again, as the concepts for the words ALLEGEDLY were well over a thousand years old, there should have been SOME word to describe them. "Pentateuch" may be Greek, and "Torah" Hebrew, but then what word WOULD English speakers have used before the 15th century then?

All of this is, of course, in perfect correspondence with what Johnson investigated, and wrote about, over a century ago.
But, as it doesn't correspond to the "conventional dating", it will likely be dismissed out of hand.

As for Livy, Livy mentions Spain...which proves that "Livy"was writing after "1479 AD".

What Livy writes about(elephants crossing the Alps, and other impossibilities) is not relevant to the issue here.

What is relevant is that Livy refers to the word "Spain"(or rather his own language's form of the word). As the geographic/political entity "Spain" begins in the 15th century, Livy must have lived after the 15th century. Some time after, as it turns out, as he considered "Spain" a given fact, and erroneously uses the term when writing about (most likely untrue) "ancient times". Again, what he actually says wax happening is not the issue. The anachronisms he places in his writings are the issue.

Would Livy have written about Isabella in his accounts of "ancient times"? Of course not. He was creating the False History, but he made one crucial error.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> As for Livy, Livy mentions Spain...which proves that "Livy"was writing after "1479 AD".



Livy doesn't just 'mention' Spain he writes an awful lot about it. As I say, I concede my whole case if you can find a single reference in Livy to the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella. Perhaps you could also see if there are any references to Hannibal (the guy with the elephants) in 15C works on Spain.

I don't think any more needs to be said.

[EDIT] Sorry, one more thing. You write "Pentateuch was first used in the 15th century". You mean the English word "Pentateuch"!! Comes from the Greek of course, _penta-_ + _teuchos, _five + books. This is laughable.



> Because that's what you are told. And what you were brought up on. But what if that was wrong.


Not at all. I research any claim very carefully, by going back to the original source, _in the original language_. Which is not what you are doing.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Livy doesn't just 'mention' Spain he writes an awful lot about it. As I say, I concede my whole case if you can find a single reference in Livy to the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella. Perhaps you could also see if there are any references to Hannibal (the guy with the elephants) in 15C works on Spain.
> 
> I don't think any more needs to be said.
> 
> ...


Again, Isabella is Reality. Livy was creating a false "glorious narrative". 

I also honestly don't understand your point about pentateuch. Yes, it's obviously Greek, and...?

If the CONCEPT of the pentateuch had existed for "thousands of years", then there would have been an English term for it, long before the "15th century". All I was demonstrating was that the word was first used in English in the 15th century. And "Torah" was first used in English in the 16th century. So, what word were English-speakers using before the 15th century then?

And, I am not just ASSUMING what the "original source" or the "original language" are. I could easily just open a textbook, but I was under the impression that this entire website is about an objective analysis of history, without any preconceptions.

So, it's not "What do the textbooks tell us?", but rather "What is the physical evidence itself telling us?" Simply stating "According to the conventional dating [writing a] is older than [writing b]" is NOT proof of anything, and going by that and that alone I, and I'm sure others, will not just simply concede that [writing a] is indeed the original.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> If the CONCEPT of the pentateuch had existed for "thousands of years", then there would have been an English term for it, long before the "15th century". All I was demonstrating was that the word was first used in English in the 15th century. And "Torah" was first used in English in the 16th century. So, what word were English-speakers using before the 15th century then?



Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th Century. The development of English from Middle English (which had almost no Latin) to modern English involved the wholesale importation of Latin (and Greek) words into the language.

Scotus (writing in conventional date 1300):


Scriptura sacra non erat in lege naturae, quia Moyses primus scripsit *Pentateuchum*, nec tota sacra Scriptura erat in lege mosaica, sed tantum Vetus Testamentum; ergo etcSacred Scripture was not in the law of nature, because the Pentateuch was first written by Moses, nor was the whole of Sacred Scripture in the Mosaic law, but only the Old Testament; therefore etc.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th Century. The development of English from Middle English (which had almost no Latin) to modern English involved the wholesale importation of Latin (and Greek) words into the language.
> 
> Scotus (writing in conventional date 1300):
> 
> ...


"Conventional date 1300", but REAL date when?
Your entire belief appears to be "Conventional dating is correct, because people who use conventional dating believe it to be correct".

I feel that we are not discussing chronology, as anything that contradicts conventional dating is brushed aside, with the explanation being "that contradicts conventional dating, therefore it is laughable".

Sorry, but to be 100% honest, in all your posts in both this thread and the earlier, now locked one, you have done nothing at all to convince me that the Scaliger-Petavius chronology is accurate. Quite the opposite in fact, as "conventional dating" rests entirely on the blind assumption that it HAS TO be correct. And the exhaustive works of Johnson, Fomenko, and others HAVE TO be wrong, simply because they don't agree with preconceived notions.

Oh, and you are now contradicting yourself. Going from "thousands" of Old English and Middle English writings, dating back into the Dark Ages to "Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th century". So, which one is it? If Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th century, what of all them Middle English texts you earlier assured us were 100% authentic?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> I feel that we are not discussing chronology, as anything that contradicts conventional dating is brushed aside, with the explanation being "that contradicts conventional dating, therefore it is laughable".


No, what was laughable was your using Merriam Webster to 'prove' that the word 'pentateuch' originated in the 1500s or whatever. You did not seem to grasp that the word was imported from the Latin during the development of Middle English into Modern English.

It seems to me your grasp of the history - or fictitious history, if you like - of the whole Renaissance period is poor. Even if the history is invented, you still need to study it and get a sense of it. It is your reluctance to learn even the basics of the subject that is lamentable.




> Oh, and you are now contradicting yourself. Going from "thousands" of Old English and Middle English writings, dating back into the Dark Ages to "Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th century". So, which one is it? If Educated people wrote in Latin before the 15th century, what of all them Middle English texts you earlier assured us were 100% authentic?



How am I contradicting myself? There are thousands of Latin documents, possibly hundreds of thousands. Not so many documents in Old English. I am familiar with the Latin tradition, not so much with Old or Middle English. I am not aware of any English documents dealing with logic or theology.

And checking, I wrote



> I work on the history of theology in the High Middle Ages (1200-1350) a subject supported by 10s of thousands of documents. There is considerable evidence that the 'official' version of history is the correct one, or at least approximately so.



Right. Theology in the high middle ages was exclusively in Latin.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 17, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> No, what was laughable was your using Merriam Webster to 'prove' that the word 'pentateuch' originated in the 1500s or whatever. You did not seem to grasp that the word was imported from the Latin during the development of Middle English into Modern English.


That's not what I said. I proved that the word "pentateuch" was first used in the English language in the 15th century.
I then asked that if that was indeed the case, then how would English speakers have referred to the 'pentateuch' prior to the 15th century? Which went completely ignored, as there is no possible answer.


Grosseteste said:


> It seems to me your grasp of the history - or fictitious history, if you like - of the whole Renaissance period is poor. Even if the history is invented, you still need to study it and get a sense of it. It is your reluctance to learn even the basics of the subject that is lamentable.


Oh, I have studied it at length. I used to believe in all  of it.
But further studies reveal it to have been a Tudor fiction.
Actually, studying the fantasy stories of the "High Middle Ages" is still highly recommended, as they offer an insight into the attitudes of the times of Henry "VIII" and Elizabeth I, the era(s) in which they were actually written.
Just as reading the "Anglo-Saxon" Chronicles and Beowulf are highly recommended for giving a clearer understanding of Elizabethan attitudes, through the historical fiction that was written in the Elizabethan Era.


Grosseteste said:


> How am I contradicting myself? There are thousands of Latin documents, possibly hundreds of thousands. Not so many documents in Old English. I am familiar with the Latin tradition, not so much with Old or Middle English. I am not aware of any English documents dealing with logic or theology.


So only people dealing with "logic and theology" were educated?



Grosseteste said:


> And checking, I wrote
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Theology in the high middle ages was exclusively in Latin.


But certainly ANYONE writing anything in any language in the "High Middle Ages" would have been highly educated by the norms of the time?
Again, it doesn't matter if they were writing theology or prose. The fact that they were writing at all is the issue.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 17, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Oh, I have studied it at length. I used to believe in all  of it.


What medieval works have you studied?



> studying the fantasy stories of the "High Middle Ages" is still highly recommended, as they offer an insight into the attitudes of the times of Henry "VIII" and Elizabeth I, the era(s) in which they were actually written.


Which works are you referring to?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 18, 2021)

Personally I think this argument has gone on long enough and you should consider agreeing to disagree. You have both presented copious material for the consideration of both sides, for which I am sure we are all most grateful. It is more than sufficient for those following this to make their own judgement.

Just an aside: the Spanish generally refer to anywhere or anyone on the British Isles as 'Inglaterra' or 'Inglés' (England or English.) This really annoys the Welsh.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 19, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Regarding the lunar eclipse, there was one on Jan 24 753 (= 9 kal feb), with a solar eclipse earlier in the same month on 5 ides Jan (i.e 9 jan).


I would like to see the graph for this one.

What about the solar total (presumably) eclipse suppesedly happening in 733 AD? The text ([Bede: Continuatio]) says:


> Anno DCCXXXIII, eclypsis facta est solis *XVIIII, Kal. Sep.* circa horam diei tertiam, ita ut pene totus orbis solis quasi nigerrimo et horrendo scuto uideretur esse coopertus.


The weird thing is that both the English and Italian translations on that page give the meaning of Sept. as *April*?!? Using the weird Roman system to count calendar dates and presuming we are talking about September, we arrive at *August, 14*. Right? Can you show the graph for this one too?

For those who wonder how, this is the explanation from the wiki (Calends - Wikipedia):


> Modern calendars count the number of days _after_ the first of each month; by contrast, the Roman calendar counted the number of days _until_ certain upcoming dates (such as the calends, the nones or the ides).
> To calculate the day of the calends of the upcoming month, counting the number of days remaining in the current month is necessary, then adding two to that number. For example, April 22 is the 10th day before the calends of May (ante diem decimum Kalendas Maius), because eight days are left in April and both end dates are included in the total.



EDIT: I think there's something going on with these "translations" from Latin (both in English and Italian). I have just found out that in the line about the Lunar eclipse the term _Februariarum _is translated by Google with January!!! How is it possible?


> Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est. Postea eodem anno et mense, hoc est nono Kalendarum *Februariarum*, luna eclipsim pertulit, horrendo et nigerrimo scuto, ita ut sol paulo ante, cooperta.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> EDIT: I think there's something going on with these "translations" from Latin (both in English and Italian).



Indeed there is.



> Anno DCCXXXIII, eclypsis facta est solis XVIIII, Kal. Sep. circa horam diei tertiam, ita ut pene totus orbis solis quasi nigerrimo et horrendo scuto uideretur esse coopertus.
> 
> In the year 733, an eclipse of the sun's 19 Kal. Apr. the third hour of the day, so that the whole world as black and awful shield should be covered.



Google is very bad at translating Latin, and I advise against using it. If you want to be a proper historian, learn how to find the original sources, and make sure you understand the source language thoroughly. Sandokhan made a terrible mistake earlier about Jerusalem being on the Bosphorus, and Daniel a similar one about the meaning of the Greek and Latin words for the Iberian peninsula.

In the case above, Google does not understand Latin cases. ‘Nigerrimo’ and ‘horrendo’ are ablative, so it reads ‘as if _by_ a _very_ black and terrible shield. I don’t understand why it thinks ‘Sep’ means ‘Apr’.



> Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est. Postea eodem anno et mense, hoc est nono Kalendarum Februariarum, luna eclipsim pertulit, horrendo et nigerrimo scuto, ita ut sol paulo ante, cooperta.
> 
> In the year 753. King Eadbert fifth year, [fifth] day of January, there was a solar eclipse. Later the same year and month, on the ninth day of January, the moon suffered an eclipse, gloomy, black shield, such that the sun is a little while before.



Again, I don’t know why ‘Februariarum’ is translated as ‘January’. Note ‘fifth day’ is wrong, for the Latin is ‘fifth Ides’= 9 Jan.

I don’t have time now to look at the graphs (nor do I see why it is necessary). I will try later this week.


----------



## Citezenship (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Indeed there is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First off, thank you all for the thread and it's contributions and my apologies for not taking part but i am enjoying the reading, it is, illuminating lets say.

My question is about this translation, and the word used.

In the year 753. King Eadbert fifth year, [fifth] day of January, there was a solar eclipse. Later the same year and month, on the ninth day of January, the moon suffered an eclipse, gloomy, black shield, such that the sun is a little while before.

Why would it say the moon suffered and eclipse? Or is this just an example of getting lost in translation?

Thanks


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> First off, thank you all for the thread and it's contributions and my apologies for not taking part but i am enjoying the reading, it is, illuminating lets say.
> 
> My question is about this translation, and the word used.
> 
> ...



Google is not a human translator but rather uses a pattern matching algorithm to match up the two languages. It doesn't understand grammar or meaning. "gloomy, black shield, such that the sun is a little while before" is hopelessly wrong. 

However 'suffered' is a reasonably good translation of 'pertulit'. 
Latin Word Study Tool


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I don’t have time now to look at the graphs (nor do I see why it is necessary). I will try later this week.


Do it when you want if you want. It is pertinent because the first eclipse you showed the graph was kind of bogus (no offence here, it is what it is). Dating and Chronology


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Do it when you want if you want. It is pertinent because the first eclipse you showed the graph was kind of bogus (no offence here, it is what it is). Dating and Chronology


OK

Solar eclipse 9 Jan 753 (=5 ides Jan)






Eclipse of moon Jan 24 753 (= 9 kal feb)


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

@Grosseteste, can you give the complete graph like the one reported on Mercier's website? (Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities) This drawing alone means nothing. Here below an example of a complete graph by Mercier's Kairos.




*Also the eclipse of 733 AD is interesting, if you have time*
​


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

I was using Mercier's software.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Yes I know. But you reported the eclipse with an incomplete graph. And I would also like to see the complete graph for the one of 733 AD too. If you want to show the graphs! It's your choice!!!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Yes I know. But you reported the eclipse with an incomplete graph. And I would also like to see the complete graph for the one of 733 AD too. If you want to show the graphs! It's your choice!!!



Why not download Mercier's software for yourself? It's actually your choice. I don't understand the point of this.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Well the point is that you showed a kind of bogus graph for the solar eclipse of 753 AD to prove your point (Dating and Chronology). That is why I asked for the other graphs. I would like to see if the other eclipses are bogus too.

IF YOU WANT TO SHOW US!!!


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Well the point is that you showed a kind of bogus graph for the solar eclipse of 753 AD to prove your point (Dating and Chronology). That is why I asked for the other graphs. I would like to see if the other eclipses are bogus too.
> 
> IF YOU WANT TO SHOW US!!!


I don't understand why Mercier's software is bogus. It simply reports a date when a solar or lunar eclipse occurred. Why is that bogus? And why don't you download the software and show us precisely why the software is bogus?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I don't understand why Mercier's software is bogus. It simply reports a date when a solar or lunar eclipse occurred. Why is that bogus? And why don't you download the software and show us precisely why the software is bogus?


You seem to not understand my English (it's bad I know)... Would you like to read it in Latin?

My question is clear and very simple to do, since you provided those graphs in an istant to "prove" your point. *It's not Mercier's software to be bogus, it's the solar eclipse represented by Bede that is bogus (Dating and Chronology).*

Can you provide the other graphs? It's not that difficult for you


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You seem to not understand my English (it's bad I know)... Would you like to read it in Latin?
> 
> My question is clear and very simple to do, since you provided those graphs in an istant to "prove" your point. *It's not Mercier's software to be bogus, it's the solar eclipse represented by Bede that is bogus (Dating and Chronology).*
> 
> Can you provide the other graphs? It's not that difficult for you


Those are the only graphs I could find, using that software. Again, could you explain precisely why the solar eclipse represented by Bede is bogus. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask.

[EDIT] I had another go, and there is also this window:





If that's not right, can you explain precisely which graph you would like to see? Or, since the software is freely available as a demo, do it yourself.

[EDIT] on whether Bede was wrong (as you claim) all he says is "Anno DCCLIII. anno regni Eadbercti quinto, [quinto] Idus Ianuarias eclipsis solis facta est. " Translation: in the year 753, in the fifth year of Eadbert, on the [fifth] ides of Jan, an eclipse of the sun took place.

That is confirmed by Mercier's software. So precisely what is bogus?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

I think you should start to read the actual posts then, since I posted and re-posted the same questions and requests multiple times without an answer (Dating and Chronology).



Grosseteste said:


> Those are the only graphs I could find, using that software.


Sorry, but this is kind of a laughable answer, since you used those graphs to "prove" your point (Dating and Chronology). Mercier's software provides graphs. It is written in their website (Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities).

EDIT: I asked for the complete graphs of the Lunar eclipse of 753 AD and the solar eclipse of 733 AD. The same graphs you posted in your original post (Dating and Chronology)


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think you should start to read the actual posts then, since I posted and re-posted the same questions and requests multiple times without an answer (Dating and Chronology).
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is kind of a laughable answer, since you used those graphs to "prove" your point (Dating and Chronology). Mercier's software provides graphs. It is written in their website (Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities).
> ...


See my edit above.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

I saw the edit and edited too.

Why is it so difficult to post those graphs? Are the other eclipses bogus too?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I saw the edit and edited too.
> 
> Why is it so difficult to post those graphs? Are the other eclipses bogus too?



I already posted all the graphs that were available. Why do you say the eclipses were bogus? I also checked in Stellarium for the same date (9 January 953), and for the same latitude as Bede (55 degrees). I get the same result - see the black spot in front of the sun, 11:30 in the morning.






[EDIT] And a similar result from Stellarium for the 733 Aug 14 eclipse. Happy to provide screenshot.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I already posted all the graphs that were available.


This is laughable. How is it possible that Mercier's website advertises something that cannot provide? This below is an example you can find on their website (Calendar conversion program Kairos; font and keyboard utilities).





*I am asking the graph for the total eclipse of 733 AD!!!*​



Grosseteste said:


> Why do you say the eclipses were bogus? I also checked in Stellarium for the same date (9 January 953), and for the same latitude as Bede (55 degrees). I get the same result - see the black spot in front of the sun, 11:30 in the morning.


I have already explained it. This shows that you don't actually read the posts. Are you on a crusade to "prove" your points by being deaf to what other people says? Here below the explanation.


> The eclipse you have found is an annular one, with the sun passing through (roughly) the Atlantic, then France, Italy and so on. I have searched from what distance the annular eclipse is still visible. This is the result: how far an annular eclipse is visible - Google zoeken
> Around 150 km, therefore Bede could not see an annular eclipse that year, since England is at roughly 500 km from the path showed on the map (it is said that total and annular eclipses cover around 1% of the surface of the Earth).
> 
> That brings a question (suggested by Fomenko in his study): what eclipses should be considered as legit to prove something?
> ...


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Oh I see! You didn't use the software, you found a picture on the website. OK, this is easily resolved.

Here is the screenshot [EDIT: FOR 2008] using the actual software





Now I simply change the date from Aug 1 2008, to Aug 14 733, and adjust for Bede's latitude (about 55o), to give this (below) which confirms there was a near total eclipse at Newcastle at that time and on that date.

(You might be a little more polite - I am giving much of my time to this).


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> You might be a little more polite - I am giving much of my time to this


I have been very polite. In a discussion you generally ask questions and give answers, without bringing one to ask the same questions 100 hundred times.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I have been very polite. In a discussion you generally ask questions and give answers, without bringing one to ask the same questions 100 hundred times.


I had had already posted the graphs you asked for, a while back, perhaps you missed this. Your English is not easy to understand. Regarding the 733 eclipse, see the chart below for Bede's latitude. This shows, contrary to what you assert, that the sun was almost completely occluded by the moon on that date.







[EDIT] Also, since I think you are questioning what Bede is _reporting_, he writes "
Anno DCCXXXIII, eclypsis facta est solis XVIIII, Kal. Sep. circa horam diei tertiam, ita ut *pene* totus orbis solis quasi nigerrimo et horrendo scuto uideretur esse coopertus."

Note the word 'pene', meaning 'nearly, almost'. Thus 'so that NEARLY the whole orb of the sun was covered as if by a very black and frightful shield". Isn't that what we are seeing in the screenshot just above?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> View attachment 10914
> 
> [EDIT] Also, since I think you are questioning what Bede is _reporting_, he writes "
> Anno DCCXXXIII, eclypsis facta est solis XVIIII, Kal. Sep. circa horam diei tertiam, ita ut *pene* totus orbis solis quasi nigerrimo et horrendo scuto uideretur esse coopertus."
> ...


You are quoting year 733 with the graph of 753. Try again


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You are quoting year 733 with the graph of 753. Try again


Apologies. I did say I had a lot of work on. See below. That looks like 'nearly the whole orb' to me.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Apologies. I did say I had a lot of work on. See below. That looks like 'nearly the whole orb' to me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 10915


The text says "Anno DCCXXXIII, eclypsis facta est solis XVIIII, Kal. Sep. *circa horam diei tertiam*, ita ut pene totus orbis solis quasi nigerrimo et horrendo scuto uideretur esse coopertus."
The _third hour *ended*_ at 9 AM, so that we are talking about a period from 8 to 9 AM (_circa_, which is more or less, but nonethess quite accurate). The graph you show (almost 11 AM) would have been classified as the fifth hour (circa). Can you show the graph for the correct time?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

English people say 'please'. Your entire posts have been a set of demands, not questions, when you could easily have downloaded the demo software for yourself. Plus accusations of my misleading you etc., when I was trying my best, despite your often obscure requests. 

Nonetheless I will try to oblige. Mercier software only gives one time as far as I can see. However, I post a Stellarium screenshot below for just after 9 o'clock. The moon is nearly central to the disc of the Sun, consistent with the Bede _continuatio_.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

> Grosseteste said:
> English people say 'please'. Your entire posts have been a set of demands, not questions, when you could easily have downloaded the demo software for yourself. Plus accusations of my misleading you etc., when I was trying my best, despite your often obscure requests.
> 
> Nonetheless I will try to oblige.


Don't play the victim. I am just asking questions and I am not accusing _you_. You started posting astronomical results, so it is quite normal to ask you about that. What next? Are you going to say to people to read the original texts in the Vatican Library after you posted them and got asked questions? This thread is in the section "Ask the expert" and you are posing as the expert. I ftou don't want to answer you can do it. People will judge your attitude before some questions. By the way, will I say "please" and "sorry" all the time? I want to remind you that you didn't answer my points for some time now and I had to repeat them over and over to catch your attention.

In any case there is one major flaw in your reasoning and here is why.

You showed this map of the eclipse




You can clearly see that the eclipse started at 8:26 in the Atlantic Ocean near the Canadian coast, exactly the third hour described by Bede.
*Therefore Bede could not possibly see the eclipse he describes in the hour he says, unless he was living in the middle of the ocean!*


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I want to remind you that you didn't answer my points for some time now and I had to repeat them over and over to catch your attention.



I didn't understand your point, which was about the annular nature of the eclipse. Your questions (or rather your demands) were obscure and poorly expressed. (Perhaps it is I being impolite now).

On 'posing as the expert' (i) the mods here moved my thread to this, and (ii) I said in one of my very first posts that my expertise is in the theology of the high middle ages. Not Bede, not astronomy.




> In any case there is one major flaw in your reasoning and here is why.
> You showed this map of the eclipse
> 
> 
> ...



There is no flaw. I gave Stellarium the rough latitude and longitude of Bede (although we do not know who wrote the continuatio, or where). The screenshot above shows the date, time AND place of capture.

See also the Mercier screen capture, which also gives lat and long. 

Perhaps I should explain how the 'Local Circumstances' window works. You move the cursor left and right to change longitude. You move up and down to change latitude. The top left of that window shows the coordinates that I chose.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I didn't understand your point, which was about the annular nature of the eclipse. Your questions (or rather your demands) were obscure and poorly expressed. (Perhaps it is I being impolite now).
> 
> On 'posing as the expert' (i) the mods here moved my thread to this, and (ii) I said in one of my very first posts that my expertise is in the theology of the high middle ages. Not Bede, not astronomy.


You didn't understand because it is not your area of expertise as you correctly say. We are talking about chronology here, not theology and therefore astronomy is important.
I know thet the mods moved the thread but it's irrelevant since you are really posing as an expert, even without the mods moving the thread!



Grosseteste said:


> There is no flaw. I gave Stellarium the rough latitude and longitude of Bede (although we do not know who wrote the continuatio, or where). The screenshot above shows the date, time AND place of capture.


Your lack of expertise here shows very well. The problem you don't understand is that there was no eclipse in Northumbria at the third hour. As simple as that! As you can see in the map.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Your lack of expertise here shows very well. The problem you don't understand is that there was no eclipse in Northumbria at the third hour. As simple as that! As you can see in the map.
> View attachment 10920​



There was no TOTAL eclipse in Northumbria, correct. Both Mercier and Stellarium agree that there was a near total eclipse, as confirmed by the 'pene' (almost) of the continuatio.

You are also terribly misunderstanding the lines of the map. The line that starts mid-Atlantic, passes through London and ends in Indo-China, that marks where the eclipse is TOTAL. You seem to think that it marks the boundary of the eclipse, which is a complete mistake. (But since you didn't bother to download the software, that is understandable).

[Please] get a copy of Mercier's software and see for yourself.

[EDIT] To help you out, I mark that line in red below. The line of _total_ eclipse.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> There was no TOTAL eclipse in Northumbria, correct. Both Mercier and Stellarium agree that there was a near total eclipse, as confirmed by the 'pene' (almost) of the continuatio.
> 
> You are also terribly misunderstanding the lines of the map. The line that starts mid-Atlantic, passes through London and ends in Indo-China, that marks where the eclipse is TOTAL. You seem to think that it marks the boundary of the eclipse, which is a complete mistake. (But since you didn't bother to download the software, that is understandable).
> 
> [Please] get a copy of Mercier's software and see for yourself.


I am reviewing the whole thing. I probably made a mistake in reading the graph and you are right *on this one*. But it's not for the reason you give. It is due to my incorrect reading of the start and end time for the eclipse, which is the penumbral start and ending and not the overall lenght of the eclipse passing through the line. The point of view is always the local one with the coordinates you give


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I am reviewing the whole thing. I probably made a mistake in reading the graph and you are right. But it's not for the reason you give. It is due to my incorrect reading of the start and end time for the eclipse, which is the penumbral start and ending and not the overall lenght of the eclipse passing through the line. The point of view is always the local one with the coordinates you give



Correct.


----------



## Sasyexa (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You didn't understand because it is not your area of expertise as you correctly say. We are talking about chronology here, not theology and therefore astronomy is important.
> I know thet the mods moved the thread but it's irrelevant since you are really posing as an expert, even without the mods moving the thread!
> 
> 
> ...


I don't mean to derail or anything, but shouldn't the Earth be smaller the further in time you go? (i.e there is potential for eclipses covering more land)


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> I don't mean to derail or anything, but shouldn't the Earth be smaller the further in time you go? (i.e there is potential for eclipses covering more land)


Are you talking about expanding earth?


----------



## Sasyexa (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Are you talking about expanding earth?


Yes


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Yes


Could be. But consider the fact that many other hypothesis or theories can reshape all the question. The shape of the earth is certainly one of them, since we are talking about astronomy and observation of the sky. But here we are assuming that the current science is right and the problem is just an incorrect counting of time due to wrong astronomical assumptions done in the past (before the presumably advances astronomy of our day). It is a fascinating subject, because phisics and time are related in such a way that if you change a little thing, the whole construction could fall down.


----------



## Sasyexa (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Could be. But consider the fact that many other hypothesis or theories can reshape all the question. The shape of the earth is certainly one of them, since we are talking about astronomy and observation of the sky. But here we are assuming that the current science is right and the problem is just an incorrect counting of time due to wrong astronomical assumptions done in the past (before the presumably advances astronomy of our day). It is a fascinating subject, because phisics and time are related in such a way that if you change a little thing, the whole construction could fall down.


Precisely, though even if their counting was correct, the events associated with those dates could be made up/misrepresented in some way.
I'm just saying that software doesn't (I think it doesn't, by the looks of it) include the possibility that Earth's size was different.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> I'm just saying that software doesn't (I think it doesn't, by the looks of it) include the possibility that Earth's size was different.


I am *sure* about this one


----------



## Sasyexa (Jun 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I am *sure* about this one


Maybe medieval(?) scholars also didn't consider this and based their calculations on the contemporary proportions of the Earth?

P.S. Maybe that's why expansion tectonics aren't accepted in academia


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 20, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Maybe medieval(?) scholars also didn't consider this and based their calculations on the contemporary proportions of the Earth?


You seem to read my mind. This is something I wondered about for a long time. In fact it is _necessary _for current historiography to place in the distant ancient and enlightened (and unproved) past the correct dimension of the Earth made by Eratosthenes so that the count of time can be justified.

In any case Maxwell himself has dated the various ages of expansion according to the dating of minerals through current methods. So every theory is always intertwined with other theories and the only way they to verify them is practical use.



Sasyexa said:


> P.S. Maybe that's why expansion tectonics aren't accepted in academia


No @Sasyexa, that's not the problem. It is a problem of timekeeping, because current chronology is presumably based on actual observations of the sky. You can see how in the middle-ages people thought that the Earth was much smaller and of a different shape. You cannot do correct timekeeping (in relation to chronology) if you don't have a correct knowledge (true or presumed) of the shape and dimensions of the Earth. That's why Scaliger and Brahe/Kepler were contemporary. A new chronology with a new model of the universe.

But here is the problem. Those men were involved in a lot of issues with the Church and Christiandom had its own chronology which was centered on Christ's birth. You don't want to mess with that!
This is why there could surface the need to justify the Anno Domini chronology (and others too) with the great advance of ancient science.

EDIT: and a new calendar too, the Gregorian calendar.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 21, 2021)

Regarding the other question about timing a birth to the minute, which would appear to be impossible in an age where clocks have no minute hand, I asked an expert, who replied:



> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...) or, _from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock_. But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. _Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way_.



The method of rectification is discussed by Ptolemy in his _Tetrabiblos _LacusCurtius • Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, — Book III, §§ 1‑9



> Difficulty often arises with regard to the first and most important fact, that is, the fraction of the hour of the birth; for in general only observation by means of horoscopic astrolabes at the time of birth can for scientific observers give the minute of the hour, while practically all other horoscopic instruments on which the majority of the more careful practitioners rely are frequently capable of error, the solar instruments by the occasional shifting of their positions or of their gnomons, and the water clocks by stoppages and irregularities in the flow of the water from different causes and by mere chance. It would therefore be necessary that an account first be given how one might, by natural and consistent reasoning, discover the degree of the zodiac which should be rising, _given the degree of the known hour nearest the event_, which is discovered by the method of ascensions.



A modern explanation, with example, can be found here Getting Started With Rectification: Trutine of Hermes and Animodar . In the example, we have a birth certificate with a time that is either on the hour or half hour, and want to find the time of birth to the minute, in this case  4:05 GMT.

Hence the medieval astrologers could work out (or believed they could work out) time of birth to the minute, without the need for clocks or minute hands.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 22, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Regarding the other question about timing a birth to the minute, which would appear to be impossible in an age where clocks have no minute hand, I asked an expert, who replied:
> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. *This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)* or, _from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock_. But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. _Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way_.


How? The astrolabe and the quadrant cannot give measurements precise to the minute (and dots dots dots either), even if they are large or gigantic. The sum of imprecise devices does _not _give a precise measure. It seems like creation out of nothing.



Grosseteste said:


> Hence the medieval astrologers could work out (or believed they could work out) time of birth to the minute, without the need for clocks or minute hands.


Absolutely not. There is not an ounce of explanation in what you posted. *Astronomers *say that timekeeping was not precise to the minute before the invention of the minute hand in 1577.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 22, 2021)

Suggest you read exactly what the expert said.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 22, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Suggest you read exactly what the expert said.


The expert is saying nothing to support the idea of timekeeping to the minute. True experts instead say that it was not possible until the invention of the hand minute. It's the astronomers who say that. The ones working in the field and with knowledge about those devices.

So the question remains... How did they measure the minute with unprecise devices?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 22, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The expert is saying nothing to support the idea of timekeeping to the minute.


True, but fortunately, he is not trying to support that idea.



> True experts instead say that it was not possible until the invention of the hand minute. It's the astronomers who say that.



Which experts say that? Citation please. You are making a serious error here (and not for the first time, as you know).


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 22, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> True, but fortunately, he is not trying to support that idea.


So it's not a valid response to the main problem. Which is how people could measure minutes without the possibility to measure them. The "expert" says *"This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)"*. If the "expert" was not trying to support the idea, then why he mentions this incorrect opinion?
(incorrect from the point of view of those who actually know those devices, the astronomers)


Grosseteste said:


> Which experts say that? Citation please. You are making a serious error here (and not for the first time, as you know).


This only shows that I am not here to defend positions. I alredy posted astronomers saying the impossibility to calculate minutes before the minute hand invention. You have posted an opinion by an "expert" who is saying *"This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)", *which is not what astronomers say.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

There are a few things wrong here, but let’s start with the main thing that is wrong. You and others are assuming that when an astrologer like Giuntini assigns a precise time of birth, he is assigning a time that is even _approximately_ correct.

This assumption is totally wrong. Here is another expert (Bill Thayer) on the subject, explaining a passage from Ptolemy that I already quoted earlier in this thread.



> What follows [i.e. what follows in Ptolemy] is a method of "rectification"; convoluted, as most such methods are. The problem can be simply stated: to draw up a good astrological chart, you need to establish the degree in the ascendant, and thus to know the birth time to within about four minutes; yet even for a present birth it is often not possible to know what time it is, and in the case of a past birth the actual time may not be known — all the more so in antiquity, when time-keeping devices were poor. So what's an astrologer to do? The approximate time, however, will be known: and that in turn will certainly be good enough to establish the previous new or full moon, the longitude of which is known quite precisely. From there, a series of calculations are made, designed to loop back to the approximate birth time in such a way as to narrow it down to a precise moment, _which is then stated to be the correct birth time_; whence the modern name for the process: "rectification". It will be noticed that methods of rectification always make certain birth times theoretically impossible; the underlying theory of rectification, not very often explicitly stated, is that births can only occur under certain configurations of the heavens. _Within the framework of astrology, it's a logical premise._



The passage from Ptolemy (the _Tetrabiblos_ at the beginning of book III) is this:



> Ἐπειδὴ περὶ τοῦ πρώτου καὶ κυριωτάτου, τουτέστι τοῦ μορίου τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐκτροπὴν ὥρας, ἀπορία γίνεταιQuoniam de prima ac precipua re, hoc est de gradu /85v/ horae geniturae sepissime solet dubitari,Difficulty often arises with regard to the first and most important fact, that is, the fraction of the hour of the birth;πολλάκις, μόνης μὲν ὡς ἐπὶ πᾶν τῆς δἰ ἀστρολάβων ὡροσκοπίων κατ̓ αὐτὴν τὴν ἔκτεξιν [p. 230] διοπτεύσεως τοῖς ἐπιστημονικῶς παρατηροῦσι τὸ *λεπτὸν τῆς ὥρας* ὑποβάλλειν δυναμένης,sola enim ut plurimum astrolabica inspectio ipso partus tempore, his qui harum rerum scientifici observatores sunt, *horae ipsius minutum* valet indicare,for in general only observation by means of horoscopic astrolabes at the time of birth can for scientific observers give the *minute of the hour*,τῶν δ̓ ἄλλων σχεδὸν ἁπάντων ὡροσκοπίων, οἷς οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἐπιμελεστέρων προσέχουσι, πολλαχῆ διαψεύδεσθαι τῆς ἀληθείας δυναμένων,aliaque fere omnia quibus horae inspiciuntur, et quibus plurimi eorum qui diligentiores sunt attendere consueverunt, ab ipsa sepe veritate dignoscuntur aberrare,while practically all other horoscopic instruments on which the majority of the more careful practitioners rely are frequently capable of error,τῶν μὲν ἡλιακῶν παρὰ τὰς τῶν θέσεων καὶ τῶν γνωμόνων ἐπισυμπιπτούσας διαστροφάς,solaria quidem, ob positionum ac gnomonum incidentes perversiones;the solar instruments by the occasional shifting of their positions or of their gnomons,τῶν δὲ δἰ ὑδρολογίων παρὰ τὰς τῆς ῥύσεως τοῦ ὕδατος ὑπὸ διαφόρων αἰτιῶν καὶ διὰ τὸ τυχὸν ἐποχάς τε καὶ ἀνωμαλίας,aquaria vero, propter inequalitates fluxus ipsius aquae, quae ex diversis causis proveniunt,and the water clocks by stoppages and irregularities in the flow of the water from different causes and by mere chance.ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη προπαραδοθῆναι τίνα ἄν τις τρόπον εὑρίσκοι τὴν ὀφείλουσαν ἀνατέλλειν μοῖραν τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κατὰ τὸν φυσικὸν καὶ ἀκόλουθον λόγον, προυποτεθείσης τῆς κατὰ τὴν διδομένην σύνεγγυς ὥραν διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀναφορῶν πραγματείας εὑρισκομένης.necessarium utique erit ante omnia docere quo nam pacto gradum zodiaci qui oriri debet, quispiam possit invenire secundum naturalem et consequentem rationem, eo videlicet gradu presuposito qui est secundum datam proxime horam, que per ascensionum operationem est inventa.It would therefore be necessary that an account first be given how one might, by natural and consistent reasoning, discover the degree of the zodiac which should be rising, given the degree of the known hour nearest the event, which is discovered by the method of ascensions.




Note that Ptolemy, writing (conventional date) around the second century AD, refers to the minute of the hour.


[EDIT] See also this False precision - Wikipedia



> False precision is the gist of numerous variations of a joke which can be summarized as follows: A tour guide at a museum says a dinosaur skeleton is 100,000,005 years old, because an expert told him that it was 100 million years old when he started working there 5 years ago.
> 
> If a car's speedometer indicates the vehicle is travelling at 60 mph and that is converted to km/h, it would equal 96.5606 km/h. The conversion from the whole number in one system to the precise result in another makes it seem like the measurement was very precise, when in fact it was not.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Middle English?
Previously on this thread I asked when the first English Lexicon/Dictionary dates from. I also asked when the English language became more standardised. I received no response to either query.
I was also informed that there was such a thing as "Middle English", which apparently was the language "from the 11th to the late 15 th century"(Not my words). 
And then, after Middle English, we get Modern English.

Of course, it's not quite so easy.
The first written reference to such a thing as "Middle English" is from 1830.
Definition of MIDDLE ENGLISH

Middle English: First Use :1830.

(In fact, that may prove to be another thread on its own. When our modern understanding of languages, and languages' relationships to each other was formed, and on what basis. As examples, "Indo-European" languages are first mentioned in 1813 
Definition of INDO-EUROPEAN
Ural-Altaic dates from 1853.
Definition of URAL-ALTAIC 
Hamito-Semitic dates from 1879
Definition of HAMITO-SEMITIC
etc. 
But the reasons why we group, say Albanian with "Indo-European" rather than "Ural-Altaic" probably warrants its own topic.)

So, Middle English. Well, the most famous writer has to be Geoffrey Chaucer.

Here's a brief excerpt:


> When that Averylle with his shoures soote The droughte of March / hath perced to the roote And bathed every veyne in swich lycour Of which vertu engendred is the flour What zephirus eek with his sweete breeth Inspired hath in euery hold and heeth The tendre croppes / and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram / his half cour yronne And smale foweles maken melodye That slepen al the nyght with open Iye So priketh him nature / in hir corages Thanne longen folk to goon on pilrymagges And Palmeres for to seeken straunge strondes To ferne halwes / kouthe in sondry londes And specially / from euery shyres ende Of Engelond / to Caunterbury they wende The holy blisful martir / for to seke That hem hath holpen whan ∂at they weere seeke


Yes, it's a bit different, but most modern people can understand most of it with no difficulty.

Here are a couple of things Edwin Johnson mentioned about Chaucer


> I wish we could be at all certain of the date when the " Canterbury Tales," as we have them, were published, and began to be read. The evidence, as usual, is very slight and unsatisfactory. The chapter of Leland reads like one of the usual booksellers' advertisements in favour of works under the name of an imaginary person in an imaginary time, the value of which must be enhanced by the legend of his life. Assuming that Leland penned the chapter on Chaucer about 1545, then it seems that at that date author and work were alike novelties in the learned world. If, again, we could treat the date of Thynne's edition, 1532, as certain, we should be near the mark. But if we take as our test " When did these remarkable tales, containing, as they do, amid many other revelations, a reflection of the best literary culture that England enjoyed, begin to be read ?" we shall have to lower the date of the book. For we do not find anyone hinting, after Leland, that he has read the book,until we come to the reformers of the times of Elizabeth and of James. They are said to have recognised that the poet was an advocate of their principles, knew all that they knew, and to have been surprised that he should see so clearly in the dark and ancient time in which he is alleged to have flourished. I should add that Polydore never says a word [96] about this truly splendid work of genius. And one is strongly tempted to suspect that the chapter of John Leland may be a late interpolation. In any case, the future historian of English culture and English literature should by no means neglect to study the question, "When were these tales written and read?" I must content myself with the general observation that the book cannot possibly be more ancient than the Tudor period. In the " Canterbury Tales " the quotations are numerous from the Pauline Epistles. Sometimes it is "the Apostle" who is quoted, sometimes Paul; in other instances no author's name is given, but sentences are dovetailed into the text, corresponding to those found in the Epistles. I may leave my English readers to make the detailed examination for themselves. They will note, how no difference appears to be made in many passages between the authority of Paul and of Seneca, or of Jerome and others ; and how no chronological perspective obtains in the mind of the poet, who is undoubtedly one of the most learned men of his time. The old Roman times, or any following times, seem all to be shrouded "in a common mist," and one writer seems as near to him as another. He does not seem to care for dates ; he thinks only of the " long ago," and time of eld. All this hints what I have had so repeatedly to insist upon, that the chronological scheme of History which we have been taught, with the imaginary perspective which it has given to our fancy, must necessarily be of comparatively recent origin. Another remarkable thing about this admirable poet is his entire freedom from literary superstitions. I have not noticed anything, in repeated reading of the "Tales," which makes the impression that he was slavishly addicted to any words he read, whether under the name of Paul or of any of the Evangelists and Apostles. He treats his authors in a free and smiling manner, as if he held to the principle that no name can recommend what is not good in itself, and that any words, good in themselves, should be relished, quite independently of the author to whom they may chance to be ascribed. I must regard him as one of the first translators of the Bible —that is, parts, of the Latin Bible —into our mother [97] tongue. He is perhaps one of a small clique, others of which later wrote some similar translation under the name of Wiclif.


Johnson also goes into detail about the origins of "The Legend of Chaucer" in The Rise of English Culture, which I'll quote to later. 
But the point is that Chaucer is still recognisable to most modern readers, and far more likely dates from the 16th than the 14th century.

Now, as to one of my unanswered questions. The first English Dictionary was "Table Alphabeticall" by Robert Cawdrey, and from 1604. Which is after Chaucer, whenever Chaucer really dates from. Cawdrey's introduction tells us
​


> _With the interpretation thereof by plaine Engliſh words, gathered for the benefit and helpe of ladies, gentlewomen, or any other vnskilfull persons. Whereby they may the more eaſily and better vnderſtand many hard Engliſh words, vvhich they ſhall heare or read in Scriptures, Sermons, or elſe vvhere, and alſo be made able to vſe the same aptly themſelues._


Again, it's understandable, and the spelling is still off. Not only that, but there is at least one letetr that doesn't exist today, yet Chaucer didn't use.

But here's an excerpt from Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, from 1616


> Not marching in the fields of Thrasymene, Where Mars did mate the warlike Carthagens; Nor sporting in the dalliance of love, In courts of kings where state is overturn’d; Nor in the pomp of proud audacious deeds, Intends our Muse to vaunt her heavenly verse: Only this, gentles,—we must now perform The form of Faustus’ fortunes, good or bad: And now to patient judgments we appeal, And speak for Faustus in his infancy. Now is he born of parents base of stock, In Germany, within a town call’d Rhodes: At riper years, to Wittenberg he went, Whereas his kinsmen chiefly brought him up


Which was actually originally written in 1592, 12 years before Cawdrey.

And yet we understand Marlowe perfectly.

The very concept of a "Middle English" only dates from the mid-19th century.

The "History of the English Language" is 19th century fiction.
And, as we see through the forced historical narrative, we see various other preconceived beliefs disappear along with this one.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Middle English?


I think, as you point out, that this is a subject for a separate thread.



> The first written reference to such a thing as "Middle English" is from 1830.



When was the first written reference to dinosaurs?


----------



## Sasyexa (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> When was the first written reference to dinosaurs?


Funny you mention this


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I think, as you point out, that this is a subject for a separate thread.


Perhaps, but it is relevant. If it can be demonstrated that our "Knowledge of the History of Languages" is incorrect, then all the "History" that is attached to that "Knowledge" is suddenly seen in a completely different light. And yet another pillar of the "conventional chronology" is removed.


Grosseteste said:


> When was the first written reference to dinosaurs?


Chalk and cheese.
Dinosaurs existed before mankind. Their remains had to be found. Nobody had found dinosaur remains, so there was no reason to name something where the very concept didn't exist.
If something exists, either as a real tangible thing, or even just as a concept or idea, then there needs to be a word or term for it.
If something doesn't exist, either in reality or in abstract or conceptual form, there is no reason for there to be a term for it.
Middle English is something that you say existed from the 11th through 15th centuries, and you said that Chaucer wrote in "Middle English".
Thus, "Middle English" is something that supposedly occurred in a literate time, when you also claim Chronology was known, and dates were recorded.
Yet, nobody thought there was such a thing as a distinct "Middle English" until 1830?
Of course, different forms of English doesn't have to mean different eras, or different languages. It could simply mean different regions, or different ways of spelling. As we still have today.
That was the other Avoided Question...When was the FIRST attempt to try and make English spelling uniform?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Chalk and cheese.
> Dinosaurs existed before mankind. Their remains had to be found.



Your argument in its present form is "If there was no written reference to X before Y, then X did not exist before Y". That argument is fallacious. What then is your actual argument?

On repeated requests about 'avoided questions', why not do your own research. When was the first attempt to try and make English spelling uniform? Over to you.



> nobody thought there was such a thing as a distinct "Middle English" until 1830



Nobody thought there was such a thing as a dinosaur until about 1824. So your argument is what?


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Your argument in its present form is "If there was no written reference to X before Y, then X did not exist before Y". That argument is fallacious. What then is your actual argument?


Right then, over to you, how DID people refer to the English writings "of the 11th through 15th centuries" before the term "Middle English" was coined?
Did they differentiate them at all from 16th century writings?


Grosseteste said:


> On repeated requests about 'avoided questions', why not do your own research. When was the first attempt to try and make English spelling uniform? Over to you.


Aren't you supposed to be the "expert" who we can all ask questions about the English language, so you can assure us that "the conventional chronology is the correct one"?
Yet you have shown yourself unwilling and/or unable to answer such questions.
Why WAS there no dictionary of the English language until the 17th century?
I know what I believe, but I'd love to hear your response.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Aren't you supposed to be the "expert" who we can all ask questions about the English language, so you can assure us that "the conventional chronology is the correct one"?



I am not an expert in the transition from Middle to Modern English. My specialism is in the Latin theological literature of the 13th and early 14th centuries. I have some knowledge of the Middle English literature, but nothing that you couldn't improve upon for yourself.



> Yet you have shown yourself unwilling and/or unable to answer such questions.



Thanks for assuming bad faith.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I am not an expert in the transition from Middle to Modern English. My specialism is in the Latin theological literature of the 13th and early 14th centuries. I have some knowledge of the Middle English literature, but nothing that you couldn't improve upon for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for assuming bad faith.


I never assume bad faith.
I brought the emergence of Chaucer into it. You dismissed what I said out of hand, repeated the "Middle English" received wisdom, and said what I had to say was "laughable".
You now admit that you don't really know the issue at hand.
Thank you for that admission.
And, are you an expert on Mediaeval astronomy as well? I'm not, by any stretch.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> I never assume bad faith.
> I brought the emergence of Chaucer into it. You dismissed what I said out of hand, repeated the "Middle English" received wisdom, and said what I had to say was "laughable".
> You now admit that you don't really know the issue at hand.
> Thank you for that admission.
> And, are you an expert on Mediaeval astronomy as well? I'm not, by any stretch.



And now please do some of your own research.


[EDIT] And yes you are assuming bad faith. You say I 'admit' I don't know. But to admit is to "acknowledge something _reluctantly_, typically because one feels _slightly ashamed or embarrassed_".

I am not reluctant to state my lack of expertise in, say Middle English, and very proud to do so. It's a common misunderstanding that an expert in one subject area must be an expert in another. Very rarely the case. Scholars tend to specialise at a very early stage in their career.

That's not to say that there are not certain general skills that one has to acquire as scholar. Namely close attention to sources, attention to detail generally, and of course complete intellectual honesty.

It's also bad faith (not saying you are guilty in this case) to suggest that there is some grand conspiracy going on, in which all scholars are complicit. If that were true, it would be a shameful thing, but it's generally not true. I say 'generally', of course.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> And now please do some of your own research.





Grosseteste said:


> And now please do some of your own research.
> 
> 
> [EDIT] And yes you are assuming bad faith. You say I 'admit' I don't know. But to admit is to "acknowledge something _reluctantly_, typically because one feels _slightly ashamed or embarrassed_".
> ...


I never said "all scholars are compliant".
As you yourself said, you are involved in Latin writings "from the 13th and 14th centuries". You believe what you believe to be true.
But, nothing exists in isolation.
If it can be shown that the writings of "Geoffrey Chaucer" were only first written during the Tudor Era, then it exposes the entire "Middle English" narrative as a latter-day idea, devoid of historical reality.
But, anyone quoting Chaucer, or anyone who is supposed to be "descended from Chaucer", but living in e 15th century, is likewise highly suspect as being historical truth. Such a person as Richard de la Pole.
But, if Richard de la Pole exists only in Tudor fiction, what of the "Wars of the Roses"? You can easily say "Do my own research", but someone else already did. In F.F. Arbuthnot's "Mysteries of Chronology" he explains that 


> To return now to Henry VII's supposed predecessor, Richard III, the date of whose birth is unknown. The date of his accession to the throne is uncertain, some writers giving 1483, others 1481, while the date of his death depends on that of the Battle of Bosworth Field, in 1485 or 1486. It is, however, now generally admitted that the dates of 1483 for the accession and 1485 for the battle are supposed to be the correct ones.


So, even the events of the "late 15th century" were still uncertain, until they were "officially" laid down, with nothing but the consensus of a group of men in a study to "make ti so".
Once we start puling at one thread of the tapestry of "the conventional chronology", it can cause the entire thing(prior to about "1600 AD") to unravel.
However, the "experts" have a built-in response..
"Oh, that's not my field".
All anyone has to do is make their own, specialised area of expertise appear internally consistent, and it matters not that it is totally incompatible with another, even closely related, area. Because, as long as one's own area of expertise is safely guarded, then you can rest assured that everything is well and correct.
And another response "That's not my field, but I'm sure the people who specialise in that must be correct."
Most people are not "conspiring" at all. They have been raised on the "conventional chronology", they have read thousands of books, articles, journals that all take the "conventional chronology" for granted, they have watched documentaries, visited museums, possibly even written their own papers, all simply taking for granted that the "conventional chronology" is as obvious as Monday being followed by Tuesday.
They will most likely never be confronted with the True Origin of the BC/AD Chronology, but if they ever are they will "know" to dismiss it as some "fringe tinfoil hat conspiracy theory". After all, if that were true, then surely somebody would have brought that up before?
But that's not evidence. There is no solid foundation, other than blind belief.
The evidence for the True Origin of the BC/AD Chronology is out there. Multiple people HAVE brought it up, yet the Mainstream "Academia" quite simply do not want to listen. They HAVE to dismiss it all, because the alternative is unthinkable.
And, again, nothing exist in isolation. If something was only invented in the 16th century, then people in the "6th century" could not possibly have made use of it. But to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge that the entire Chronological Framework needs to be dismantled and reassembled, from scratch.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> There are a few things wrong here, but let’s start with the main thing that is wrong. You and others are assuming that when an astrologer like Giuntini assigns a precise time of birth, he is assigning a time that is even _approximately_ correct.
> 
> This assumption is totally wrong. Here is another expert (Bill Thayer) on the subject, explaining a passage from Ptolemy that I already quoted earlier in this thread.
> 
> ...


What you seem to not understand is that there is an implicit anachronism in the matter itself. All these explanations have no value when faced to the problem of the impossibility to measure the minute in those times. You cannot build a science around something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> What you seem to not understand is that there is an implicit anachronism in the matter itself. All these explanations have no value when faced to the problem of the impossibility to measure the minute in those times. You cannot build a science around something that doesn't exist.



I totally acknowledge the impossibility of accurately _measuring_ the time in minutes, using the method ('rectification') of Ptolemy. But your whole thesis hangs on the assumption that Giuntini _was_ accurately measuring the time in minutes. All the available evidence strongy suggests he wasn't. He was following the procedure of Ptolemy, as explained by Thayer, which I post again below.



> What follows [i.e. what follows in Ptolemy] is a method of "rectification"; convoluted, as most such methods are. The problem can be simply stated: to draw up a good astrological chart, you need to establish the degree in the ascendant, and thus to know the birth time to within about four minutes; yet even for a present birth it is often not possible to know what time it is, and in the case of a past birth the actual time may not be known — all the more so in antiquity, when time-keeping devices were poor. So what's an astrologer to do? The approximate time, however, will be known: and that in turn will certainly be good enough to establish the previous new or full moon, the longitude of which is known quite precisely. From there, a series of calculations are made, designed to loop back to the approximate birth time in such a way as to narrow it down to a precise moment, _which is then stated to be the correct birth time_; whence the modern name for the process: "rectification". It will be noticed that methods of rectification always make certain birth times theoretically impossible; the underlying theory of rectification, not very often explicitly stated, is that births can only occur under certain configurations of the heavens. _Within the framework of astrology, it's a logical premise._





Silveryou said:


> You cannot build a science around something that doesn't exist.


Clearly not. Your argument is what?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I totally acknowledge the impossibility of accurately _measuring_ the time in minutes, using the method ('rectification') of Ptolemy. But your whole thesis hangs on the assumption that Giuntini _was_ accurately measuring the time in minutes. All the available evidence strongy suggests he wasn't. He was following the procedure of Ptolemy, as explained by Thayer, which I post again below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you understand your argument makes no sense? How many times I have to repeat the same thing?

If you cannot measure the minute, the minute does not exist. So we have a clear anachronism here. How could those people even imagine to measure something for which they didn't have an appropriate device?

Astrolabes, quadrants, clepsydrae, sun-clocks, water-clocks, candles... ALL these devices could not measure the minute. Using all of them with "careful time-keeping", as suggested by the "expert" doesn't change the problem. HOW could they do it if they had nothing to do it? It is not a problem of _accurate _measuring. It's a problem of impossible measure.

But the texts are there to tell something.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Do you understand your argument makes no sense? How many times I have to repeat the same thing?



It makes perfect sense.



> If you cannot measure the minute, the minute does not exist.


Totally untrue. A minute is just a division of the hour (into 60 parts). We can have the concept of many things even though we cannot measure them.

[EDIT] e.g. a perfect circle, a perfectly straight line, a line of exactly one metre in length.



> So we have a clear anachronism here. How could those people even imagine to measure something for which they didn't have an appropriate device?



As I said, even Ptolemy admits that the standard measures do not work. So my quote above. So he invented the method of 'rectification', which although hopelessly wrong, the medieval and renaissance astrologers followed. 



> Astrolabes, quadrants, clepsydrae, sun-clocks, water-clocks, candles... ALL these devices could not measure the minute. Using all of them with "careful time-keeping", as suggested by the "expert" doesn't change the problem.



'Rectification' is not careful time keeping, as both the experts concede.



> HOW could they do it if they had nothing to do it? It is not a problem of _accurate _measuring. It's a problem of impossible measure.


They couldn't do it. I have said that about three or four times. They invented a division of the hour (which is conceptually possible) then invented a pseudo-method of measuring it.

So here is my argument

(1) The conceptual division of the hour into arbitrary fractions is perfectly possible.
(2) The Renaissance astrologers had no method of measuring that unit of arbitrary fraction (the 'minute')
(3) So Giuntini's fake birthdates were perfectly consistent with the time he was writing.

Which of the two premisses is false?


Daniel said:


> The evidence for the True Origin of the BC/AD Chronology is out there.


I have looked at some of it, and it doesn't hold water. Perhaps there is stronger evidence out there. Happy to look at it.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

What does not "hold water"?
Who do you think created the BC/AD Chronological framework?
When do you think this occurred?
And what methods did those people use to create the Chronology?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Glad to see you are contradicting the "expert" who said:


> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. *The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)* or, from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock. But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way.


The "expert" clearly says that it was possible to obtain the measure of minutes through time-keeping devices. Which is false, since those devices have an error of 4 minutes.

The rectification method has nothing to do with what we are talking about, since it was used to obtain the minute of birth *when it was not possible to measure it in person*, which is impossible since there is an error of 4 minutes, as astronomers say.


> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...) or, from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock. *But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods* called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way.



So you are making up new explanations that contradict the common perception of historians, as you can see in what you posted.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The rectification method has nothing to do with what we are talking about, since it was used to obtain the minute of birth *when it was not possible to measure it in person*, which is impossible since there is an error of 4 minutes, as astronomers say.


The rectification method does not require anyone to be there in person. It can be given to any made-up degree of precision. Please look up again the difference between precision and accuracy.



> So you are making up new explanations that contradict the common perception of historians, as you can see in what you posted.


I have given three sources for the method of rectification. There are many others you can find online.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The rectification method does not require anyone to be there in person. It can be given to any made-up degree of precision. Please look up again the difference between precision and accuracy.


You are repeating what I said making it sound like I said something different. Please, read what you post.


> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth.* The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)* or, from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock. *But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods* called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> You are repeating what I said making it sound like I said something different. Please, read what you post.



Communication breakdown. Never mind.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

_Your _breakdown, to be fair. Here what I wrote


Silveryou said:


> The rectification method has nothing to do with what we are talking about, since it was used to obtain the minute of birth *when it was not possible to measure it in person*


Here your response


Grosseteste said:


> The rectification method does not require anyone to be there in person. It can be given to any made-up degree of precision.


That's why I answered


Silveryou said:


> You are repeating what I said making it sound like I said something different. Please, read what you post.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Are you denying that Giuntini used the rectification method? Perhaps that's what you are on about. Evidence please.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

I will repeat again.


> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. *The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)* or, from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock. *But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods* called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way.


There is clearly a consequentiality in what the "expert" said: *when it's not possible to measure the minute in person, astrologers will resort to "rectification"*. So talking of rectification is just a way to change the subject.

The fact is that minutes could not be measured, but it's implied that _*some births were measured in person, by the minute! *_How could they do that with the poor technical devices they had? This is called anachronism.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I will repeat again.
> 
> There is clearly a consequentiality in what the "expert" said: *when it's not possible to measure the minute in person, astrologers will resort to "rectification"*. So talking of rectification is just a way to change the subject.
> 
> The fact is that minutes could not be measured, but it's implied that _*some births were measured in person, by the minute! *_How could they do that with the poor technical devices they had? This is called anachronism.



I can't reply to the point about the accuracy of large measuring instruments. That's what the man said. But in any case that point is irrelevant, for I claim that Giuntini used the method of rectification, and let's remember that this argument began with Giuntini's claim about Copernicus' birth time. 

The whole argument is about the method that Giuntini used to determine Copernicus' birth time, and the nature of that method is clearly not 'just a way to change the subject'. It's the crux of the whole matter.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> The whole argument is about the method that Giuntini used to determine Copernicus' birth time, and the nature of that method is clearly not 'just a way to change the subject'. It's the crux of the whole matter.


Wrong!!!

I was the one to start the "debate" _about the impossibility to measure the minute without the minute hand invented by Jost Burgi._

I really don't care about Copernicus, because the same thing can be applied to famous characters who certainly had astrologers at their court. The rectification methods were *only *used when no one was present at birth, but when the astrologers were present, they used "*large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)"*, according to the "expert".

This cannot be true, since those devices couldn't measure the singular minutes, as astronomers say.

This creates an undeniable anachronism. This is the subject discussed and the problem I reported to you from the start. Talking about the rectification methods is just a way to change subject.

_*How the astrologers could measure, when present at birth, the singular minutes using devices that couldn't do that?*_


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> _*How the astrologers could measure, when present at birth, the singular minutes using devices that couldn't do that?*_


Given you now accept that Giuntini was using 'rectification', you need to find evidence of an astrologer who was writing before clocks were accurate to within a minute, and who was provably not using rectification.

Good luck.

[EDIT] And note that Fomenko's minute-hand argument here http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-4.pdf expressly relies on the birth date of Copernicus. Given that the birth date was determined by Giuntini, and given that Giuntini was using 'rectification', Fomenko's argument collapses. He had not done his homework.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Given you now accept that Giuntini was using 'rectification', you need to find evidence of an astrologer who was writing before clocks were accurate to within a minute, and who was provably not using rectification.
> 
> Good luck.


You are confusing yourself. You have created a conflict with me about this "rectfication method" of which I have never cared during all the discussion.

This method was used when no one took the actual date of birth in person. In the other scenario, the "expert" (named by you as such) has already said that the minute *"can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)"*.

You have given the proof by yourself by citing the "expert". And in fact you are the historian here and you should prove that the "rectification methods", on which you are pointing all your money, were used in the moment of birth too, which seems not by the sources you provided.



Grosseteste said:


> [EDIT] And note that Fomenko's minute-hand argument here http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-4.pdf expressly relies on the birth date of Copernicus. Given that the birth date was determined by Giuntini, and given that Giuntini was using 'rectification', Fomenko's argument collapses. He had not done his homework.


You are showing to have not even understood what is the point of that study. Very good


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> And in fact you are the historian here and you should prove that the "rectification methods", on which you are pointing all your money, were used in the moment of birth too, which seems not by the sources you provided.


Interesting question about where the burden of proof lies. Remember you are a historian as well.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Interesting question about where the burden of proof lies. Remember you are a historian as well.


If you make an unbelievable claim, then it is on you to prove it to be true. The purpose of this forum is to question our mainstream history, so refering to the authority of the mainstream history as taught is not a valid argument here.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> If you make an unbelievable claim, then it is on you to prove it to be true.


Quite.


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> If you make an unbelievable claim, then it is on you to prove it to be true. The purpose of this forum is to question our mainstream history, so refering to the authority of the mainstream history as taught is not a valid argument here.


I have asked Grosseteste to provide us with the Story of the Creation of the BC/AD Chronology. Twice.
Still waiting for any response.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> I have asked Grosseteste to provide us with the Story of the Creation of the BC/AD Chronology. Twice.
> Still waiting for any response.


I think I have contributed quite enough here.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Interesting question about where the burden of proof lies. Remember you are a historian as well.


I gave you the proof. Here it is.


> I haven't been able to locate Copernicus's horoscope in Giuntini's volume, but this horoscope is commonly found in collections of horoscopes from the 1540s onwards and it is indeed the source for Copernicus's date of birth. *The time of birth in horoscopes is generally given to the minute. This can be obtained by careful time-keeping, by means of large instruments (astrolabe, quadrant...)* or, from the 16th century, thanks to the mechanical clock. But most people didn't know their time or even their date of birth. In that case, the astrologer had to "recalculate" the correct day/time using "rectification" methods called "animodar" or the "Trutina of Hermes", both of which involve a good amount of calculations. Most medieval and 16th-century horoscopes were recalculated in this way.


This is the "expert" you relied upon. He is telling you that minute keeping was possible. Why do you say I didn't give proof?

On the other hand though...


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I think I have contributed quite enough here.


So, another thing you don't really know that much about?
If I may, if this topic is about "Chronology", then surely the creation of said chronology should be a key part.
And if the Chronology was created AFTER the time these writings are said to date from...


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Daniel said:


> So, another thing you don't really know that much about?


I have contributed enough. People here are so rude.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I have contributed enough. People here are so rude.


When you lack answers you always come up with these kind of arguments.


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 23, 2021)

I don't think people are rude here. What I see is curiosity, and frustration, but not rudeness. Obviously most here reject your point of view, and this comes across as hostility to you, but it is to be expected in a forum that doesn't believe in the official narratives. Please remember that in academia people usually are hyper-polite, as academics have created a sterile, formal atmosphere, where everything is important, except the topic at hand.

If I decided to go into a mainstream history forum, I would be pleasently surprised if people don't laugh me out and call me an idiot. But in this forum you got a lot of curious questions, and the interest in this thread is very high.

I don't think we need to handle the discussion with velvet gloves, we are all grown ups here.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> People here are so rude.


How rude tarring us all with the same brush!


----------



## Daniel (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I have contributed enough. People here are so rude.


All I asked for is for you to tell everyone here your basic understanding of where, when, how and by who the BC/AD Chronology was created.
It shouldn't have been a problem to simply say that you do not know that information.
But, it may be that admitting that fact could look like you are admitting that many of your viewpoints and beliefs may require reconsideration.
This is a Chronology topic. You were the one who requested everyone ask questions about Chronology.
And now it appears that some of those questions have made you question what you took to be plain fact.
That's not people being rude. It's people trying to discuss things, and make sense out of "facts" that simply do not add up, such as how people were able to keep track of things to the exact minute before that was physically possible.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 23, 2021)

Indeed, as dreamtime has said, this is a very interesting topic and probably the main topic when it comes to stolen history.

It seems many are interested in this topic and we as 'hobby historians' appreciate any kind of evidence that can put things even partially right in this field of research.

I posted a video earlier in this thread which clearly proves that people much before the times you are presently discussing were able to measure time to the minute. NOT with the minute hand, as there were no mechanical clocks we have evidence of but by using a LARGE OBJECT as Grosseteste's source mentioned.

It's clear to me that it wasn't considered to be significant enough to respond to as no mention of it has occurred in this discussion which has done nothing but gone around in circles while the evidence of timekeeping by the minute is contained in the posted video.

The amusing aspect of HOW the timekeeping aspect of the device was found is that if a 'guru' had not gone up to the device and stuck his pointing finger on the center of the 'clock', nobody would know to this day that it is actually a timekeeping device that is accurate to the minute (and even more if you care to measure smaller intervals).

I hope not to get into the discussion of 'Where is the minute hand'. 

So let's note the time of construction of this sun clock.



> "The current Konark temple dates to the 13th century, though evidence suggests that a sun temple was built in the Konark area by at least the 9th century.[59]"



So we have clear evidence of the accurate measuring of time to the minute dating to at least the 13th century (if we can believe that date).

My original post:

Chronology

My last comment was for all to 'draw your own conclusions' but that would have required actually taking the 10 minutes to watch the video and do some research on the subject, which would have been welcome but since it didn't happen, here's mine.

Conclusion:

Given that the builders of that time (obviously with the help of astrologers) were able to build such a precise instrument (which is accurate to this day), and we're talking applied math as it pertains to geography, architecture, materials, knowledge of cosmology, etc., it is NOT a great leap in logic to consider;

that the Konark Temple was NOT the only such device ever built at that time.

some of those types of devices may have been built on other continents by others who shared that level of knowledge.

that the earth cataclysms may have buried some others

that the PTB had a field day in eliminating such devices/structures to knock us back into the stone-age,

to have intelligent critical thinkers argue in circles regarding a crucial subject as this one to unraveling our true history.

Astrology is the oldest of sciences.  I would guess that the first time humans started to look up at the 'heavens' and observe their motion and attempt to piece together their relevance to themselves and the creation they were a part of, they realized that the study of that would bring them closer to 'enlightenment' (closer to being able to understand their creator).

______________________________________________________

Let's try and keep things civil and respectful despite the frustration you may feel when your point is ignored or taken out of the context you intended.

As long as there's no obvious ill will displayed by someone, try and 'drive your point home' as respectfully and gracefully as possible.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

@Safranek I saw the video but it doesn't seem to explain anything. There is a guy who says it is accurate but no proof given. I've read something in the last days about sundials and they require some specific knowledge about the position of the Sun and other things too. The video doesn't touch any of those aspects. Here is an article but there are more on the internet (Is a sundial accurate | Macmillan Hunter Sundials).

Finally I have to confess that I am really really really biased when it comes to anything about the "ancient quadrubimillenial India/Egypt/Mesopotamia/South American" history. Those monuments are certailny beautiful and they have probably a mistery around them, but I don't see why must be attributed to them an overextended chronology which is only the product of their post-colonial ultra-nationalism.

I would gladly revise my opinion when confronted with some technical proof.



Grosseteste said:


> you need to find evidence of an astrologer who was writing before clocks were accurate to within a minute, and who was provably not using rectification.


I am not an historian myself but I found someone who can tell you that. _All thanks to you!_


> Difficulty often arises with regard to the first and most important fact, that is, the fraction of the hour of the birth; for in general *only observation by means of horoscopic astrolabes at the time of birth can for scientific observers give the minute of the hour*, while practically all other horoscopic instruments on which the majority of the more careful practitioners rely are frequently capable of error, the solar instruments by the occasional shifting of their positions or of their gnomons, and the water clocks by stoppages and irregularities in the flow of the water from different causes and by mere chance.


Who said that? Mr. Ptolemy himself in the link you provided (at the beginning of paragraph 2 - LacusCurtius • Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, — Book III, §§ 1‑9)!!!

You should read your sources more carefully.

Apparently we have here an even bigger anachronism. Ptolemy didn't know his own devices, since astrolabes were not that precise, as astronomers say!


----------



## Daniel (Jun 24, 2021)

> The Konark Temple dates to the 13th century


How? By who?


----------



## Safranek (Jun 24, 2021)

Daniel said:


> How? By who?


Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dig up old research and make a post on this (it possibly deserves it's own thread), hence why I commented:



> My last comment was for all to 'draw your own conclusions' but that would have required actually taking the 10 minutes to watch the video and do some research on the subject



Here are a few links from a quick search:

https://www.recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/17199-A-2021.pdf

Secrets Of Sundial At Konark Sun Temple – Neuronerdz

11 Interesting Facts About Konark Sun Temple Very Few People Knows!

----------------------------------------------------



> Magnets and Floating Idol  The following are popular sayings from the local populace and the guides.  Legend has it that, the uniqueness of the temple lies in the fact that between every two stone pieces there lies an iron plate (this can be clearly seen). The temples higher floors have been reinforced using massive iron beams. This fantastic effort in human perseverance took 1200 workers about 12 years to complete and that the ’’Dadhinauti’’ (Peak) of the main temple had to be installed by the 12 year old son Dharmapada Moharana of the Chief Architect Bishu Moharana. The said peak being a 52 ton magnet. This magnet was the reason the entire edifice endured the harsh conditions (being on the sea front) for centuries without being affected. The main pratima (idol) was believed to be floating in the air because of the unique arrangements of the main magnets and other series of magnets. The placement of the temple had been aligned in a way that the first rays of the Sun fallingon the coast would pass thru the Nata Mandir and would reflect from the diamond placed at the center of this idol in the Main Sanctum. This phenomena would last for a couple of minutes during the early morning. These magnets were later removed by the Britishers for acquiring the magnetic stone. A notice at Konark Sun Temple premises declaring it as a WorldHeritage monument.The large structure seen today is actually the mantapa(mandap). Of the main tower, which once stood in the front, only the remains can be seen. This tower (deul) was perhaps 200 feet (60 metres) tall, higher than any other temple in India.
> 
> Other legends state that, the magnetic effects of the lodestone was so strong that it disturbed the ships compasses that passed by the coast and the ships would run aground. To save their trade and their ships, the Portuguese took away the lodestone. The lodestone that was acting as the central stone and keeping all the stones of the temple wall balanced, fell out of alignment because of its removal and eventually led to the destruction of Main Sanctum.



Source: 

https://cintec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Konark-Sun-Temple-3pg.pdf

___________________________________



> A controversy has erupted after several users on Twitter pointed out that the stone carvings on the Konark Sun Temple have been destroyed.
> 
> Twitter users posted pictures of Konark then and Konark now to show the changes made to the structure. It is being said that 40% of the stone carvings had been replaced by the ASI with plain stones. This is plain criminal a Twitter user also said. The Odisha government knew that the ASI was destroying the Temple, it tried to intervene but in vain, the user also pointed out.
> 
> ...



Source:

Have the historic stone carvings at Konark Temple been replaced with plain stones?

---------------------------------



> Konark in texts​Konark, also referred to in Indian texts by the name _Kainapara_, was a significant trading port by the early centuries of the common era.[58] The current Konark temple dates to the 13th century, though evidence suggests that a sun temple was built in the Konark area by at least the 9th century.[59] Several Puranas mention Surya worship centers in Mundira, which may have been the earlier name for Konark, Kalapriya (Mathura), and Multan (now in Pakistan).[60] The Chinese Buddhist pilgrim and traveler Hiuen-tsang (also referred to as Xuanzang) mentions a port city in Odisha named _Charitra_. He describes the city as prosperous, with five convents and "storeyed towers that are very high and carved with saintly figures exquisitely done". Since he visited India in the 7th century, he could not have been referring to the 13th-century temple, but his description suggests either Konark or another Odisha port city already featuring towering structures with sculptures.[40]
> According to the Madala Panji, there was at one time another temple in the region built by Pundara Kesari. He may have been Puranjaya, the 7th-century ruler of the Somavasmi Dynasty.[61]
> 
> Construction​The current temple is attributed to Narasimhadeva I of the Eastern Ganga Dynasty, r. 1238–1264 CE– . It is one of the few Hindu temples whose planning and construction records written in Sanskrit in the Odiya script have been preserved in the form of palm leaf manuscripts that were discovered in a village in the 1960s and subsequently translated.[62] The temple was sponsored by the king, and its construction was overseen by Siva Samantaraya Mahapatra. It was built near an old Surya temple. The sculpture in the older temple's sanctum was re-consecrated and incorporated into the newer larger temple. This chronology of temple site's evolution is supported by many copper plate inscriptions of the era in which the Konark temple is referred to as the "great cottage".[40]
> According to James Harle, the temple as built in the 13th century consisted of two main structures, the dance _mandapa_ and the great temple (_deul_). The smaller _mandapa_ is the structure that survives; the great _deul_ collapsed sometime in the late 16th century or after. According to Harle, the original temple "must originally have stood to a height of some 225 feet (69 m)", but only parts of its walls and decorative mouldings remain.[5]



Source:

Konark Sun Temple

----------------------------------------------

New Light on the Sun Temple of Koṇārka: Four Unpublished Manuscripts Relating to Construction History and Ritual of this Temple - Alice Boner, Sadāśiva Rath Śarmā, Rajendra Prasād Dās​
New Light on the Sun Temple of Koṇārka

-------------------------------------------------

As I said before, draw your own conclusions. I see that for some, the only evidence they will accept is to actually go there in person with a watch on one arm and the finger of the other hand on the sun dial and track the time for several days or maybe even weeks or months, but they would be more than happy to accept info from books of questionable origin by unknown and unconfirmed individuals. 

In my own view, the astrological, archeological and anthropological record trumps the written record in every case when correctly applied. And this only because one is unchangeable where the other is not.


----------



## daniloscarinci (Jun 24, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> I have contributed enough. People here are so rude.


I have to admit it, what I have read here classifies as being rude, which is a shame. People here are always criticizing academia, and when someone shows up, personal attacks come into play. If you are truth seekers and so is Grosseteste, you will end up knowing better or he will "go back" to academia with new ideas. However, mistreating a guest will make him never come back. Stolen History shouldn't become a religion.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 24, 2021)

Safranek said:


> https://www.recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/17199-A-2021.pdf
> 
> Secrets Of Sundial At Konark Sun Temple – Neuronerdz
> 
> 11 Interesting Facts About Konark Sun Temple Very Few People Knows!


This articles quite frankly don't explain why it should be considered a very precise time-keeping device. The first one, which seems the most "scientific" out of the three has a scary first page and it's clearly directed by Indians, who have all the interest to push their "India first" agenda (WELCOME TO IJRSR  | International Journal of Recent Scientific Research).


Safranek said:


> https://cintec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Konark-Sun-Temple-3pg.pdf


Here the same. Lots of beautiful images with a captivating mystical description, but poor research behind the alleged precision of the sundial.


Safranek said:


> Have the historic stone carvings at Konark Temple been replaced with plain stones?


An article by "Team MyNation" with complaints about alleged modifications to the building. Is there something more nationalistic than this?


Safranek said:


> Konark Sun Temple


Again no clue about the sundial magical properties.


Safranek said:


> New Light on the Sun Temple of Koṇārka


Don't know the content of the book.

All these articles plus the absence of whatever proof to the claims made in the video make me really suspect of a nationalistic promotion of uber-ancient monuments in the spirit of "India First". "We Indians were the first to do this and that, we invented this and that. Do you see our splendid sundial carved in stone partially destroyed by some envious Westerner or Muslim?"

I've seen this a lot of times (not only for India! Italy is much the same on so many levels).
Archaeologists Find Marble Head of Roman Emperor Augustus in Italian Town
Ancient Rome according to Piranesi and others


----------



## Safranek (Jun 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This articles quite frankly don't explain why it should be considered a very precise time-keeping device.


If you had watched 10 minutes of the video I posted in my previous comment, it is explained very well. Of course you can take the position that the whole 'tourist guide scenario' was just staged for Indian nationalism and that is your prerogative. On the other hand, if its true, then our ancestors have been counting minutes for much longer than currently accepted.



Silveryou said:


> An article by "Team MyNation" with complaints about alleged modifications to the building. Is there something more nationalistic than this?


The article gives evidence of tampering with ancient architecture by changing its message. IMHO this has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism. My guess would be closer to the current Indian 'academic' establishment trying to remove any clues regarding the historical, architectural significance of the building. India was under the control of the British and Dutch East India companies for long enough for them to have been able to erase, modify, falsify many things including their ancient scriptures. What's left can still be deemed undesirable.



Silveryou said:


> All these articles plus the absence of whatever proof to the claims made in the video make me really suspect of a nationalistic promotion of uber-ancient monuments in the spirit of "India First". "We Indians were the first to do this and that, we invented this and that. Do you see our splendid sundial carved in stone partially destroyed by some envious Westerner or Muslim?"


Based on what we see with historical revisionism this is par for the course. Let's consider Formenko and Russian nationalism (many accuse him of being biased in this regard). Let's also consider the history of the Slavs, as the element of nationalism is also very evident there. Let's also consider the Germans in their effort to relate their ancient history to a Germanic origin, not to mention the Italians, Spanish, Scandinavians, the Africans (Moors), etc.

Unfortunately, this all plays into the hands of TPTB as its just further divide and conquer. It makes our job as 'amateur historians' much more difficult if we can't sift through the information discerning the actual facts from the propaganda.

I refuse to fall into the trap of not being able to look at the research of the revisionists of any nation due to the fact that there is a tactic at work whereby its coupled to a shade of nationalism. Its a simple way of attempting to discredit the research and having people throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Consider that the Konark Temple was likely built around the same time as Angkor Wat and probably by a group of architects, astrologers, etc. sharing the same knowledge.

I guess you haven't checked out the 'Lost Keys' thread, there is a very nice section on Angkor Wat therein well presented by Catalyst. IMHO that thread is the cutting edge of what 'Stolen History' is about in its presentation and content. It goes levels above when the minute was invented via observation through a mechanical device.

Consider that any device we make to calculate time, only serves the purpose of calculating the motions of the sun, moon, planets and the cosmos, but essentially the sun. All time-keeping devices are mechanical sun dials. It is the motion of the sun that gives us time itself. In the article you posted regarding sun dials, there is a section entitled "Is the Earth an Accurate Clock".

No, it is not. The sun is an accurate clock. All other clocks only attempt to confirm their accuracy in relation to how accurately they can predict the motion of the sun to the minute, second, microsecond or nanosecond. As the article assumes a heliocentric model, it is bound by that assumption.

At present, the sum of my personal research points to a previous civilization of many races and nations having coexisted peacefully together, speaking various dialects of a common language sharing in a culture that was much more advanced than ours with respect to knowledge of who they are and what their purpose was with regards to their creator and the realm they lived in. We no longer possess this knowledge but are on a quest to try and piece it together from the little we have left due to cataclysms and a psychopathic control system that made every effort to destroy anything which may point us in the right direction. This is my personal view at present and it may change as I come across verifiable and congruent information to the contrary.

In conclusion, you had an 'expert' on the subject of astrology respond to you via a request by Grosseteste (not easy to get an opinion from these people on a whim) whereby it was stated that measuring the minute was possible for astrologers of the time by using a LARGE OBJECT. I have given you proof of such an object which seems to confirm the statement as given by the 'expert'. You can discount both however, what if the 'expert' is right and the Konark Temple wheels are such an object (of which many more may have existed)?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 25, 2021)

Safranek said:


> If you had watched 10 minutes of the video I posted in my previous comment, it is explained very well. Of course you can take the position that the whole 'tourist guide scenario' was just staged for Indian nationalism and that is your prerogative. On the other hand, if its true, then our ancestors have been counting minutes for much longer than currently accepted.


I'm sorry, I've watched it all and it doesn't give a valid demonstration of anything. It seems it is you who is taking position in assuming there was an explanation for the counting of minutes other than fingers' shadows and unexplained claims. It seems the whole history of time-keeping says that our ancestors did not take time into consideration and lived very well just with the sound of bells ringing from time to time. If one wants to demonstrate the precision of this "sundial", experiments/tests should be made!!! But oooops, the evil British and Arabs ruined the sundials...


Safranek said:


> The article gives evidence of tampering with ancient architecture by changing its message. IMHO this has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism. My guess would be closer to the current Indian 'academic' establishment trying to remove any clues regarding the historical, architectural significance of the building. India was under the control of the British and Dutch East India companies for long enough for them to have been able to erase, modify, falsify many things including their ancient scriptures. What's left can still be deemed undesirable.


But oooops, the evil British and Arabs ruined the sundials... Yes this is exactly what I was talking about, which is blaming others to prove that we are dealing with an incredible astounding monument and the first sundial to count minutes, which is not (99.9%).


Safranek said:


> Based on what we see with historical revisionism this is par for the course. Let's consider Formenko and Russian nationalism (many accuse him of being biased in this regard). Let's also consider the history of the Slavs, as the element of nationalism is also very evident there. Let's also consider the Germans in their effort to relate their ancient history to a Germanic origin, not to mention the Italians, Spanish, Scandinavians, the Africans (Moors), etc.


I agree. But here we are talking of the Indians. I have stated multiple times that Fomenko's reconstruction is not my cup of tea.


Safranek said:


> Unfortunately, this all plays into the hands of TPTB as its just further divide and conquer. It makes our job as 'amateur historians' much more difficult if we can't sift through the information discerning the actual facts from the propaganda.
> 
> I refuse to fall into the trap of not being able to look at the research of the revisionists of any nation due to the fact that there is a tactic at work whereby its coupled to a shade of nationalism. Its a simple way of attempting to discredit the research and having people throw out the baby with the bathwater.


I agree. Unfortunately here it seems to be one of those cases, since there is no proof whatsoever to these incredible claims of India being the first to count minutes.


Safranek said:


> Consider that the Konark Temple was likely built around the same time as Angkor Wat and probably by a group of architects, astrologers, etc. sharing the same knowledge.
> 
> I guess you haven't checked out the 'Lost Keys' thread, there is a very nice section on Angkor Wat therein well presented by Catalyst. IMHO that thread is the cutting edge of what 'Stolen History' is about in its presentation and content. It goes levels above when the minute was invented via observation through a mechanical device.


Sorry, I enjoy the forum and I have great respect and interest for everything and everyone, especially Catalyst who is an autonomous thinker like it's difficult to find, but I'm not going to be a sectarian who has to believe in everything on the forum. My personal main interest is chronology. If you look at the vast majority of my posts/threads you can see it immediately. If possible, I would like to explore this field without anyone teach me what I have to do or believe.

About the time in which buildings were built, it seems that Europeans have to be happy with their 16th century palaces, while Indians and others (Italians included) have their -2000 years buildings, and even more according to many. I follow Fomenko's reasonings and think that this is incorrect.


Safranek said:


> Consider that any device we make to calculate time, only serves the purpose of calculating the motions of the sun, moon, planets and the cosmos, but essentially the sun. All time-keeping devices are mechanical sun dials. It is the motion of the sun that gives us time itself. In the article you posted regarding sun dials, there is a section entitled "Is the Earth an Accurate Clock".
> 
> No, it is not. The sun is an accurate clock. All other clocks only attempt to confirm their accuracy in relation to how accurately they can predict the motion of the sun to the minute, second, microsecond or nanosecond. As the article assumes a heliocentric model, it is bound by that assumption.
> 
> At present, the sum of my personal research points to a previous civilization of many races and nations having coexisted peacefully together, speaking various dialects of a common language sharing in a culture that was much more advanced than ours with respect to knowledge of who they are and what their purpose was with regards to their creator and the realm they lived in. We no longer possess this knowledge but are on a quest to try and piece it together from the little we have left due to cataclysms and a psychopathic control system that made every effort to destroy anything which may point us in the right direction. This is my personal view at present and it may change as I come across verifiable and congruent information to the contrary.


Mechanical clocks are dependable because they are independent from the motion of the sun, the stars and celestial bodies in general. This is a fact. And they are also very accurate, as opposed to sundials.

The first sundials created to count the minutes were heliocronometers (Heliochronometer) and it doesn't seem to me that the one in Kornak has the requirements to be one of those.

I was debating with Grosseteste following certain preassumption that he certainly has to follow, since he is an academic. One of these is that we live in a heliocentric system. Therefore your support to him is null, in the particular discussion we had. Not because I am against what you say (I don't have a particular view in this sense) but because some rules must be followed in a discussion and I would never debate an academic with arguments involving other views other than those ufficial. I already stated it in this thread here (Chronology - Chronology)

I am glad that you want to share with me your worldview. I don't think various races coexisted happily on Earth, IMO.


Safranek said:


> In conclusion, you had an 'expert' on the subject of astrology respond to you via a request by Grosseteste (not easy to get an opinion from these people on a whim) whereby it was stated that measuring the minute was possible for astrologers of the time by using a LARGE OBJECT.


The "expert" on astrology is not an astronomer. It is not _*me*_ who says sundials and other devices are not precise to the minute. _It's the astronomers!!!_ Is there a secret plot to describe those devices as inaccurate? It should be easy to test these marvellous Indian sundial in a proper scientific way but in the video we see only fingers and their shadows. This is not proof of anything whatsoever. The opinion of the "expert" was entirely taken from written books, as I showed by citing the sources, plus the opinion on the "rectification methods" that had nothing to do with the problem of minute counting before the invention of the minute hand.

This is an article which explains why huge, enormous and gigantic sundials have nothing to do with precision ((Im)Precision in Time). Very interesting since it talks about the *GIGANTIC *Jaipur Observatory.


Safranek said:


> I have given you proof of such an object which seems to confirm the statement as given by the 'expert'. You can discount both however, what if the 'expert' is right and the Konark Temple wheels are such an object (of which many more may have existed)?


Please don't use this kind of rhetoric.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The *"expert"* on astrology is not an astronomer.



On the scare quotes around 'expert', see my post here https://stolenhistory.net/threads/dealing-with-specialists.5439/ on dealing with specialists.

I had a further discussion with that specialist, and he knows an awful lot about the methods used by the Greek, renaissance and medieval astronomers. I think he is right about large devices (but nothing hangs on that assumption anyway).



> This is an article which explains why huge, enormous and gigantic sundials have nothing to do with precision ((Im)Precision in Time). Very interesting since it talks about the *GIGANTIC *Jaipur Observatory.



I visited the Jaipur observatory in 2018 and it really is gigantic. It has a _precision_ of 2 seconds, and a claimed _accuracy_ of the same amount. This article https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/022/03/0201-0212 suggests an accuracy of close to one second, using many observations. The errors range over +/- 20 seconds (see Figure 7).

Of course the Jaipur device was built in the 18th century, but the basic principle was known to the ancient Greeks.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> But oooops, the evil British and Arabs ruined the sundials


Please take the time to read the article before your reply with a statement such as this one. The article said nothing of sundials.



Silveryou said:


> there is no proof whatsoever to these incredible claims of India being the first to count minutes.


Yes, I agree. As there are plausible theories that the culture which was established there was not created by whom we now call Indians.



Silveryou said:


> Mechanical clocks are dependable because they are independent from the motion of the sun


Independent yes, but their accuracy relies on being able to calculate its motion. Without the sun, there's no way to verify their accuracy.

The Heliochronometer is an interesting device. Thanks for the link.



Silveryou said:


> My personal main interest is chronology. If you look at the vast majority of my posts/threads you can see it immediately. If possible, I would like to explore this field without anyone teach me what I have to do or believe.



Not even a suggestion if you read carefully, let alone teaching.

I was merely pointing out a very interesting thread wherein certain concepts are put forth which (if even partially true) expose a fantastic capability that the builders of those types of 'temples' had. And if those were never temples, then the religious chronology applied to them is obviously false.



Silveryou said:


> some rules must be followed in a discussion and I would never debate an academic with arguments involving other views other than those ufficial



I understand. You have to stay inside the 'box' of the accepted narrative.



Silveryou said:


> It should be easy to test these marvellous Indian sundial in a proper scientific way but in the video we see only fingers and their shadows. This is not proof of anything whatsoever.



Yes, it should be easy to test them. Someone on location with the resources and a point to make just has to show interest and apply his resources. 

The fingers and their shadows shows that the wheel can tell time based on shadows like a sundial. The only debate would be is one regarding to its accuracy.



Silveryou said:


> Please don't use this kind of rhetoric.



If that's your interpretation, so be it. The wheel exists, its a large object supposedly from the 12th century, it tells time (according to some to the minute but I understand if you prefer to wait for 'scientific' confirmation before accepting it), and its in line with what an expert in the field stated.




Grosseteste said:


> Of course the Jaipur device was built in the 18th century, but the basic principle was known to the ancient Greeks.



Thanks for the link, a very interesting set of observatories of various sizes and purpose.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 26, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> On the scare quotes around 'expert', see my post here https://stolenhistory.net/threads/dealing-with-specialists.5439/ on dealing with specialists.
> 
> I had a further discussion with that specialist, and he knows an awful lot about the methods used by the Greek, renaissance and medieval astronomers. I think he is right about large devices (but nothing hangs on that assumption anyway).


It was you who called the "expert" an expert. Chronology


> Regarding the other question about timing a birth to the minute, which would appear to be impossible in an age where clocks have no minute hand, I asked an *expert*, who replied:





Grosseteste said:


> Of course the Jaipur device was built in the 18th century, but the basic principle was known to the ancient Greeks.


No proof given.



Safranek said:


> The wheel exists, its a large object supposedly from the 12th century, it tells time (according to some to the minute but I understand if you prefer to wait for 'scientific' confirmation before accepting it), and its in line with what an expert in the field stated.


The "temple" has 24 wheels... 24 sundials? Konark Sun Temple - Wikipedia


> The Konark temple presents this iconography on a grand scale. It has 24 elaborately carved stone wheels which are nearly 12 feet (3.7 m) in diameter and are pulled by a set of seven horses.





Safranek said:


> Independent yes, but their accuracy relies on being able to calculate its motion.


The count is no more dependent on astronomy, since clocks work on their own. Our artificial counting of time is now used to measure the Universe, while back in time we relied on the Universe itself for time-keeping.

EDIT: @Grosseteste you called the "expert" an expert _*two times!!! *_Chronology


> Here is *another expert* (Bill Thayer) on the subject, explaining a passage from Ptolemy that I already quoted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 26, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Our artificial counting of time is now used to measure the Universe, while back in time we relied on the Universe itself for time-keeping.


Never seen it put more precisely. Made my day thank you.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 26, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The count is no more dependent on astronomy, since clocks work on their own. Our artificial counting of time is now used to measure the Universe, while back in time we relied on the Universe itself for time-keeping.


Yes, clocks work on their own by whatever means, whether atomic, mechanical, digital, etc.

And these clocks are made by men for a purpose. And what is that purpose? The same as it has always been.



> A *clock* is a device used to measure, verify, keep, and indicate time. The clock is one of the oldest human inventions, meeting the need to measure intervals of time shorter than the *natural units*: the day, the lunar month, and the year. Devices operating on several physical processes have been used over the millennia.



Clock - Wikipedia

So accordingly, they are used to measure natural units: the *day*, the *lunar month*, and the* year*, and fractions thereof.

And these are defined by the motion of the sun and the moon. Even Wiki can gets such a simple concept defined in just one paragraph.



kd-755 said:


> Never seen it put more precisely.



IMO the opening paragraph of the Wiki page on Clocks puts it much more precisely as the motion of the Universe is NOT a natural unit but if the Silveryou definition is more precise for you, who am I to argue?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 27, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Independent yes, but their accuracy relies on being able to calculate its motion. Without the sun, there's no way to verify their accuracy.


I forgot the second part, now underlined. It's important because the accuracy of a clock is independent from the motion of the sun, the stars etc... and my answer was reffering to this aspect.


> A *clock* is a device used to measure, verify, keep, and indicate time. The clock is one of the oldest human inventions, meeting the need to measure intervals of time shorter than the *natural units*: the day, the lunar month, and the year. Devices operating on several physical processes have been used over the millennia.


The wiki doesn't say that their accuracy depends on the motion of celestial bodies, and rightly so.
The wiki is in fact saying what I have stated, which is that our devices serve the purpose of measuring the Universe, like an artificial clock measuring a natural clock.


Safranek said:


> So accordingly, they are used to measure natural units: the *day*, the *lunar month*, and the* year*, and fractions thereof.
> 
> And these are defined by the motion of the sun and the moon. Even Wiki can gets such a simple concept defined in just one paragraph.


This is not what I was talking about. Here the wiki says that the motion of the sun and the moon defines day, lunar month and year. I was not talking about this simple thing. But even here I can say that the clock has substituted the *natural units*. No one wakes up anymore with the rooster crow. Or maybe just a few, good for them.

My "definition" was all about the historic perspective, absent in the wiki definition. We relied on the sun as our natural clock, we now rely on the clock, which is independent from the first.


----------



## Safranek (Jun 27, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I forgot the second part, now underlined. It's important because the accuracy of a clock is independent from the motion of the sun, the stars etc... and my answer was reffering to this aspect.


I understand. This wasn't clear in your statement.



Silveryou said:


> like an artificial clock measuring a natural clock.


Exactly. The motions of the sun and moon being real time while the man-made devices being artificial.



Silveryou said:


> But even here I can say that the clock has substituted the *natural units*. No one wakes up anymore with the rooster crow.



You can say that, but it would be incorrect as the clock has NOT substituted them. It artificially breaks them into smaller increments within the natural time. They are still the natural units, the clock is not.



Silveryou said:


> My "definition" was all about the historic perspective, absent in the wiki definition. We relied on the sun as our natural clock, we now rely on the clock, which is independent from the first.



We still rely on the sun as our natural clock, we have just devised schedules measured by the artificial clock as it relates to the natural time as given by the sun's motion and fractions thereof.

I hope our mutual clarifications suffice and we can move on to your topic at 'hand'. (I mean the minute hand.)


----------



## Oracle (Jul 2, 2021)

This article may be of use to you in this thread:
Complications and challenges for securing Mediterranean timelines
"the possibility of a mid–16th-century BC date for the Thera/Santorini eruption deserves investigation (1, 4, 5, 9). If positive evidence is found, it would place the floruit of New Palace Crete (Middle Minoan III to Late Minoan IA, and Aegean contemporaries) before New Kingdom Egypt, coeval with the previous Hyksos world—a fundamental shift from previous orthodoxy (10). However, current 14C evidence, even allowing for revised calibration datasets 1700 to 1480 BC (1, 4, 5), and a small Mediterranean 14C offset, points somewhat earlier still, toward the last decades of the 17th century BC (9)."


----------



## Blackdiamond (Dec 15, 2021)

Chronology: When and where in time do you think this is? It is from läckö slott. No fires or cultural layer or cannons seems to have affected this curious looking structure. About the only one standing of many former starforts in the area that historians have transformed into mansions and so on.





 ​


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 15, 2021)

Blackdiamond said:


> Chronology: When and where in time do you think this is? It is from läckö slott.


At first sight I read 1030 on the image but looking better it's 1630, which is in line with the date given on the wiki for the reconstruction by De la Gardie (Läckö Castle - Wikipedia).


----------



## Daniel (Dec 15, 2021)

And it's not a "1" either


----------



## Blackdiamond (Dec 15, 2021)

Daniel said:


> And it's not a "1" either


Yes, the "6" is questionable. Would take an honest expert to really get an answer. 
could have been painted on to suit. Its one of few castles that the state owns, this could be a reason why. Because according to earth walls and paintings, this castle is not a very prominent one of that era, compared to others that are now repurposed or ruined.
  Story goes it was a Taiga wasteland, like siberia, with small castles with wooden fences sqattered around in southern scandies. Not diamond shaped "bastions" (with windmills instead of cannons of course) network, along with huge gardens and water canals. As well as the fact that those old Estates on top of starforts almost always face the waters for easy acces. And "bastion" always point in land.
 Thats why a post this question here. Maybe someone with better local knowledge have these erased starfort structures covered in some alternative chronology, because the official one is a bit off it seems.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 15, 2021)

Blackdiamond said:


> Yes, the "6" is questionable. Would take an honest expert to really get an answer.


I'm certainly not an 'expert' (forbidden word on this thread), but saying it's a 0 would be dishonest, imo. And I'm certainly not one in agreement with our current chrono.


Daniel said:


> And it's not a "1" either


My problem with i(s) instead of 1s is that the examples shown don't show i(s) in the middle of the number.
example: 1661 becomes i66i. They always show i661. If you find any contrary example let me know.

Edit: even though, thinking twice, it could be due to the fact that i(s) were rewritten as 1s in a second moment. Yeah! Never thought about that!


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 15, 2021)

I see
Anno.i 6 30





FWIW  the actual method used to read exactly what we are seeing is hidden away by the simple expedient of not mentioning it or it is lost to all alive today inc 'them' so 'they' made shit up instead.


----------



## yoxdo (Dec 16, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Hi all. I was asked privately to post again about dating and chronology. The original thread was here Dating and Chronology but got disrupted.
> 
> I work on the history of theology in the High Middle Ages (1200-1350) a subject supported by 10s of thousands of documents. There is considerable evidence that the 'official' version of history is the correct one, or at least approximately so.
> 
> Happy to discuss that evidence.


Not sure if its been asked but have you seen Fomenko's empire overlays? If history is correct and no time added how does one explain basically perfect overlays of supposed dynasties separating one another by several hundred years?


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 16, 2021)

yoxdo said:


> Not sure if its been asked but have you seen Fomenko's empire overlays? If history is correct and no time added how does one explain basically perfect overlays of supposed dynasties separating one another by several hundred years?


@Grosseteste profile is still active but he called himself out of the forum, so he will probably not answer your question at least at the moment. I can in any case answer your questions by saying that he has not read anything by Fomenko and he believes all his work is utter nonsense.


----------



## Daniel (Dec 16, 2021)

Well, as long as he keeps an open mind...


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 16, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Well, as long as he keeps an open mind...


I think it's hard for an academic to adventure in the realm of recentism. Too many things at stake: career and personal beliefs above all. I acknowledge his will to discuss though.


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 16, 2021)

I'll add another one to consideration. According to Saxon Grammaticus, first Danish kings existed before the birth of Christ.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 16, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> I'll add another one to consideration. According to Saxon Grammaticus, first Danish kings existed before the birth of Christ.


Interesting. It would be nice to read something about it. Is there something by Saxo in translation?


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Interesting. It would be nice to read something about it. Is there something by Saxo in translation?


I don't know if there is one in English, I got this particular fact from here. Wiki confirms that he wrote as such, but calls those works made up, so who knows.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 16, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> but calls those works made up


They have to, since it would mess up their chrono. They generally pick what they like from different ouvres to make up their history... in a totally scientific manner, bare in mind


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 16, 2021)

Because it fits this thread, I'll repost this excerpt from A. Khrustalyov's book "Галльское Евангелие"



> The vast majority of manuscripts dating from the dark and ancient ages have no reference at all to the chronology, except for the one written out by scientists retroactively on the basis of the ideas of the scientists themselves about how everything should actually be. Interestingly, paleography (that is, the science of the peculiarities of the development of writing in time) arose in the XVIII century as a response to the assumption of the Jesuits about the forged nature of many ancient documents. That is, initially the goal of paleographers was not to reveal the truth, but to powder the brains of all who doubted the authenticity of old papers and parchments.
> 
> And the reasons for suspicion were very strong. They are most fully set out in the works of Jean Hardouin, a French theologian-encyclopedist that knew ancient languages brilliantly and explained quite popularly why most of the so-called ancient manuscripts are outright fakes of the Renaissance. Under the hot hand and sharp pen of the truth-lover Hardouin, both secular and ecclesiastical sources fell, so the spread of the works of the Jesuit-intellectual was not provided. That is, they could not put them under the spot for that simple reason, that the quality of Hardouin's works turned out to be simply exemplary and there was no way to challenge them, but the Roman rulers refrained from advertising and launching the masses of heretical books. Just think: Hardouin, on the basis of textual analysis, came to the conclusion about the fictitious nature of the records of all (emphasis: ALL!) church Councils, up to the Trident, and this is the middle of the XVI century. A few decades earlier, another French researcher, Spondanus, came to a similar conclusion about the chronicles of the Fourth Council of the Lateran. And Hardouin, without dwelling on the documents of the Councils, rode through the manuscripts of the Greek fathers of the Church, sarcastically noting their gaping absence in the Greek-speaking part of the Ecumene, but littering the French libraries. One of the features of these works, as Hardouin points out, is the striking similarity of the language of the authors, who wrote in the same way for 1500 years. Any normal language changes quickly enough, Hardouin said, and it is hard not to agree with him. But in the Greek Hall, the vocabulary and syntax have not changed for centuries, and they all use the same dialect of the Greek language. The same inescapable constancy is present, according to Hardouin, in some Latin texts as well. "Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodorite (*Obviously, this refers to the Orthodox theologian Theodorite of Kirsky*), Justin were co-owners of one library ... - the French Jesuit quipped, - ... they praise the same authors, they prove the falsity of the same stories. It's the same with the others," Hardouin said (*Hereinafter, Arduin's book “Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum” is quoted*).
> 
> ...


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 16, 2021)

> Interestingly, paleography (that is, the science of the peculiarities of the development of writing in time) arose in the XVIII century as a response to the assumption of the Jesuits about the forged nature of many ancient documents. That is, initially the goal of paleographers was not to reveal the truth, but to powder the brains of all who doubted the authenticity of old papers and parchments.


This is a key point of the overall discussion, imo. You have Jesuits saying everything 'ancient' is false against historians saying it's true. The paradox lies in the rather strange allegiance of those who say "everything is false" with non other than the _eeeeeeeevil Jesuits!!! _Isn't it funny?


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is a key point of the overall discussion, imo. You have Jesuits saying everything 'ancient' is false against historians saying it's true. The paradox lies in the rather strange allegiance of those who say "everything is false" with non other than the _eeeeeeeevil Jesuits!!! _Isn't it funny?


It's almost as if generalising doesn't work for honest history research

_P.S. _There's also the issue of using *many *different chronologies during the middle ages. Toth Gyula elaborated on this in his work - From Scythia to Maghreb: Beyond the Phantom Middle Ages


----------



## ViniB (Jan 1, 2022)

Daniel said:


> All explained by Johnson over 120 years ago.
> 
> Let's take Writer A. He creates a text, and names names. He may even briefly 'quote' one of these people. But none of these people ever existed.
> 
> ...


Great explanation, thanks!! I'll add here something that i came across today that sounds total bs. A book Page from supposed 1751 when a bunch of portuguese royals were killed because one of their relatives had an affair with a girl, and the girl's Family hated the royals LOL you can't make this up hahahaha


----------



## wild heretic (Jan 17, 2022)

Blackdiamond said:


> Chronology: When and where in time do you think this is? It is from läckö slott. No fires or cultural layer or cannons seems to have affected this curious looking structure. About the only one standing of many former starforts in the area that historians have transformed into mansions and so on.
> 
> 
> View attachment 14867 View attachment 14868​



i630 is *1530 AD* apparently, if we are to take i592 date when Columbus discovered America as not a typo on one of the old maps.


----------



## Daniel (Jan 17, 2022)

wild heretic said:


> i630 is *1530 AD* apparently, if we are to take i592 date when Columbus discovered America as not a typo on one of the old maps.


Columbus may have only reached the Americas 100 years after we are told.
The entire "Discovery and Settlement of the Americas" narrative is strange. Columbus lands in "1492", there's sporadic trips after. The Incas and Aztecs are defeated in the early "16th" century.
But actual settlements don't really begin until the late 16th/early 17th centuries. People like the Dutch and the British are 100 years behind the Spanish. The French are supposed to have had a temporary settlement, then not returned for another 100 years.
The written accounts of the Conquests of the Incas and Aztecs don't become published/available until 100 years after the events.
If we push all the "1480s" through about "1550s" events related to the Americas back about 100 years, and overlay it with the events of the "1590s" through about "1660s", it actually makes a lot more sense.

Edit: as a a very rough outline..
Columbus lands in 1492. Conquest of Mexico starts in 1522. The FIRST-HAND account Bernaz Dial del Castillo's "Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana" is publisher in...1632.

Pizarro starts his Conquest in 1532.
Jamestown is founded in 1607. Mayflower sails in 1620.

France sends their first "Advance scouts" in 1524, but permanent French settlement in the Americas begins in..1634.

The Netherlands start colonising the Americas in 1602.

In Africa, Bartolomeu Dias rounds the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, Vasco De Gama lands in what is today South Africa in the 1490's, but permanent European settlement in South Africa has to wait until the "17th" century.

If we push all the dates from "1480s" through "1530s" back 100 years, it makes sense.


----------



## wild heretic (Jan 17, 2022)

Daniel said:


> Columbus may have only reached the Americas 100 years after we are told.
> The entire "Discovery and Settlement of the Americas" narrative is strange. Columbus lands in "1492", there's sporadic trips after. The Incas and Aztecs are defeated in the early "16th" century.
> But actual settlements don't really begin until the late 16th/early 17th centuries. People like the Dutch and the British are 100 years behind the Spanish. The French are supposed to have had a temporary settlement, then not returned for another 100 years.
> The written accounts of the Conquests of the Incas and Aztecs don't become published/available until 100 years after the events.
> If we push all the "1480s" through about "1550s" events related to the Americas back about 100 years, and overlay it with the events of the "1590s" through about "1660s", it actually makes a lot more sense.



Sure, but I was just using that as an example for *dating* the "i" dates. I've no idea what Columbus did tbh.

Off the top of my head, and off-topic, I dare say he discovered a place in Central or the north coast of South America somewhere for the "Spanish", probably Central America opposite the Caribbean (West Indies). I bet the maps then showed a very different looking Americas north to south. This set up Cortez and others to go and explore.

Others probably discovered North America around the same time.


Daniel said:


> Edit: as a a very rough outline..
> Columbus lands in 1492. Conquest of Mexico starts in 1522. The FIRST-HAND account Bernaz Dial del Castillo's "Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana" is publisher in...1632.
> 
> Pizarro starts his Conquest in 1532.
> ...



Very interesting. That really sounds like an "i" and "1" mix up doesn't it? Didn't the early bibles have the same 100 year problem with the Gutenberg press? You know, Gutenberg bible printed in the mid-15th century, but the early printed bibles don't start really appearing until 100 years later.

So let's knock 100 years off the colonizing dates and we get:
1. Columbus lands in 1492. Conquest of Mexico starts in 1522. The FIRST-HAND account Bernaz Dial del Castillo's "Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana" is publisher in...*i632*. This is 1532 AD, which now makes sense.

2. Jamestown is founded in *i607*. Mayflower sails in *i620*. Really 1507 and 1520 AD.

3. France sends their first "Advance scouts" in 1524, but permanent French settlement in the Americas begins in..*i634*. This is really 1534 AD. Perfect sense again.

4. The Netherlands start colonising the Americas in *i602*. This is 1502 AD. Perfect sense.

In Africa, Bartolomeu Dias rounds the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, Vasco De Gama lands in what is today South Africa in the *1490's*, but permanent European settlement in South Africa has to wait until the "17th" century. Which really would be the *16th century*.

Perfect. Good job.

So it looks like the English and Dutch discovered North America, very closely followed by the French; and the Spanish, Central America (and maybe north coast of South America) around the same time (probably the Portuguese discovered South America around then too). Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 17, 2022)

But where is the evidence for this perfect sense?
Surely there must be evidence for these claims of perfect sense.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 18, 2022)

wild heretic said:


> i630 is *1530 AD* apparently


Fomenko gives visual proof of fives being sixs (how can I write this?) and/or viceversa. Don't remember where though.



wild heretic said:


> So it looks like the English and Dutch discovered North America, very closely followed by the French; and the Spanish, Central America (and maybe north coast of South America) around the same time (probably the Portuguese discovered South America around then too).


I've always thought that the gap in european colonization of a hundred years was very very very strange and sus'. I interpreted it as Spain starting the colonization a century *after *but your point of view of an anticipated british/french/deutch colonization is to take in consideration.
Is it possible that fives were written as sixs in some parts of Europe alone?


----------



## Daniel (Jan 18, 2022)

Yes. I understood it as De Gama, Columbus, Dias all sailing in the late "16th" century, and then the Dutch, British, French immediately following.


----------



## wild heretic (Jan 25, 2022)

Daniel said:


> Yes. I understood it as De Gama, Columbus, Dias all sailing in the late "16th" century, and then the Dutch, British, French immediately following.



I like to think its 100 years earlier than that for everyone. It matches the maps and a little bit of archeological evidence I stumbled across a while back.


kd-755 said:


> But where is the evidence for this perfect sense?
> Surely there must be evidence for these claims of perfect sense.



Sure, there's European artefacts in North America in the Nacoochee Valley (north Georgia, just above Atlanta) from the 1500s apparently.



> During the late 1820s and 1830s, gold miners found several village sites, constructed out of hewn logs, which contained *European* artefacts typical of the *fifteenth and sixteenth century*. All were buried under six to nine feet of sand! In 1939, archaeologist Robert Wauchope was puzzled by a three to fifteen feet deep band of sand, containing no artefacts, which lay under the soil, containing late eighteenth century and nineteenth century artefacts. Beneath the sand was a 4-12 inch band of soil contain a mixture of Creek (Lamar Culture) artefacts and *sixteenth*/seventeenth century *European* artefacts. Below that were artefacts, typical of the region south of the mountains, going back to the Ice Age.



web.archive.org/web/20190706122522/https://peopleofonefire.com/petroglyphs-near-ancient-volcano-seems-to-be-a-writing-system.html

That's a good distance from coastal America and obvious first settlements like New York, thus indicating early settlement of North America to have started in the early 1500s.

Also, just look at the maps from 1450 to 1600 and tell me when America first appeared on them. Then tell me that it took them over 100 years to "discover" it and settle there. The maps alone should be evidence enough for enquiring minds.


----------



## ViniB (Feb 12, 2022)

wild heretic said:


> I like to think its 100 years earlier than that for everyone. It matches the maps and a little bit of archeological evidence I stumbled across a while back.
> 
> 
> Sure, there's European artefacts in North America in the Nacoochee Valley (north Georgia, just above Atlanta) from the 1500s apparently.
> ...


It could be 100 years earlier as well as 100 later. It boils down to the dates on the maps to be 100% correct and not been tampered with. Is there a way to verify this as of today? Not that i'm aware off, so it's limbo territory. 

The link you provided says that the supposed petroglyphs SEEMS to be a writting system. Seems is a word in the category of maybe, could be, possible i.e we don't know, but it is because x reasons. The same can be applied to central and south america too, but that would chance the thread too much


----------



## Blackdiamond (May 13, 2022)

j's, not 1's.

(also, can someone find out where the map is centered? i couldnt )


----------

