mysteries of egyptian zodiacs - HiddenMysteries Information Central

4 1 The Problems of Historical Chronology
— in 5004 B.C; according to Brugsh — in 4455; according
to F. Chabas — in 4000 B.C.; according to E. Mayer — in
3180 B.C.; according to T. Andrzejewski — in 2850 B.C.;
according to J. Wilkonson — in 2320 B.C.; and according
to E. Palmer — in 2224 B.C., and so on. The difference between
the dating of Champollion and that of Palmer is 3 643
years. At the present, a shorter version of Egyptian chronology
has been adopted, but it is extremely self-contradictory
and it still contains many unsolved problems. It turns out that
the dynastic sequences were set arbitrarily and the very ancient
age ascribed to these lists contradicts the archaeological
data. In fact the basic Egyptian chronology was also based
on Christian sources. For example, the list kings compiled
by Manethon only survived as quotations made by Christian
authors.
Let us point out that the Orthodox Church avoided using
the birth of Christ as a chronological reference point, which
was one of the reasons of the East-West schism.
1.2 Who were the Critics of
Scaliger’s Chronology
Questions and doubts regarding the correctness of the
presently accepted chronology aren’t a recent phenomenon.
They were raised as soon as it was first published.
In fact, there were also other competing hypothesis
indicating a “young age” of the “written his-
tory.” Let us cite from the Morozov’s book [4] 9 :
“Professor de Arcilla of Salamanca
University published two
of his works Programma Historiae
Universalis and Divinae
Florae Historicae in the 16th
century, where he stated that
the whole of ancient history
had been forged in the Middle
Ages; the same conclusions
were reached by the Jesuit
historian and archeologist J.
Hardouin (1646-1729), who regarded
the classical literate as
written by the monks of the
preening, 16th century A.D. (see
his books Consiliorum Collectio
regia maxima, Chronologiae
ex nummis antiquis prolusio de
mummis Herodiadum, Prolegomena
ad censuram vertum scriptorum).
The German Privatdozent
Robart Baldauf wrote his book
Historie und Kritik in 1902-
Figure 1.2: John Hardouin
(1646–1729), French scolar,
linguist, historian,
philosopher, and theologian.
1903, where he asserted on the basis of purely philological argument
that not only ancient, but even medieval history was a
falsification of the Renaissance and subsequent centuries 10 .”
9 Translation by O. Efimov taken from [103].
10 See [4], Vol. 7, p. vii-viii, Introduction.
Figure 1.3: Sir Isaac Newton
(1642–1727)
The famous English
mathematician, astronom,
physicist and scientist, Sir
Isaac Newton (1642–1727)
holds a special place among
the critics of the Scaliger–
Petavius chronology. He
is considered to be the
culminating figure of the
scientific revolution of the
17th century, who discovered
a composition of white light,
laid foundation of physical
optics, established principles
of mechanics, formulated the
law of universal gravity, and
discovered (independently of
G. Leibnitz) differential and
integral calculus. What is less known about Newton that he
was also an author of serious works devoted to chronology
problem, which led him to a conclusion that several main
sections of the Scaliger version of chronology are erroneous.
His main contributions to this area were A Short Chronicle
from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest
of Persia by Alexander the Great and The Chronology of Ancient
Kingdoms Amended. By applying scientific approach,
I. Newton radically rearranged the ancient chronology. In
general, the Newton’s chronology was significantly shorter
than the Scaliger version, which is commonly accepted today.
For example, Newton shifted most of the historical events
preceding the epoch of Alexander of Macedonia closer to
our times. Nevertheless his revisions the chronology were
much less radical than the changes proposed by Nikolai A.
Morozov, for whom Scaliger’s chronology was sufficiently
reliable only from the 6th century A.D. Let us point out
that Newton’s chronological research was not at all dealing
with the Christian era. Basically, he analyzed Egyptian and
ancient Greek chronology and probably didn’t have enough
time to investigate the later epochs.
Unfortunately the enormous work performed by Newton
was taken skeptically by his contemporaries. Newton’s
chronological research is not getting a better treatment from
the present-day historians. By comparing his work with
Scaliger’s chronology they are convinced that Newton was
mistaken. They claim that without knowledge of the hieroglyphic
or cuneiform writing, or the immense archaeological
data (which clearly were not yet available at that time), Newton
made large errors in his dating, ranging up to a thousand
years.
Let us indicate briefly what were those Newton’s
“mistakes.” For example, according to the presently accepted
Egyptian chronology, the coronation of Pharaoh
Menes took place in the year 3000 B.C., while Newton
estimated that this event happened in the year
946 B.C. — a discrepancy of about 2000 years.