Introduction
Guidelines
If the conventional History is no longer valid, what else is valid then? This question is not at all easy to answer. The critic of chronology is still at an early stage and the different researchers have reached no agreement about what should be considered secure and what must raise doubts. The last few centuries of our History are of course more or less well documented. But where finishes the invented of falsified History and starts the true one is very difficult to outline.
The authors who publish their articles on newchronology share the following views:
Epochs
- Since roughly 1500 AD —or let's say since Charles V and Albrecht Dürer— our History has been registered more or less accurately. One is allowed to doubt and to refuse some details, such as exact years, but the overall framework is considered to be correct.
- Our knowledge of the 15th century AD —with the rise of astronomical science in Europe, bookprinting, the discovery of African coasts etc— might be considered close to the truth as a whole, but all Anno Domini dates have been calculated later, which means that a careful scrutiny is needed.
- All events before the 15th century AD have been recorded and dated long afterwards and might have happened as we are told or in a very different way or may even not have happened at all. A great deal of persons —from kings to clerics and writers— have been made up later.
- The evolution of cultures before the 15th century AD has been progressing faster than what is commonly believed.
Catastrophs
- Frequent cosmic catastrophs have influenced in an important way the Earth's evolution and must be integrated into our geological models and theories.
- Several catastrophs have happened in the recent History of humankind and explain important cultural developments, although the record of their existence has been excluded later willingly from the collective memory.
Methods
- We use a scholarly method that gathers, analyses and examines critically all sources and records about a given event, such as writings, excavations, stratigraphy, coins or oral traditions. Every statement will be explained, based on commonly accepted facts. When an object or document is stated to be a fake, evidence must be given, based on logical analysis. Former scientific records are to be used, even if interpreting them in a critical manner.
- The similarity of different epochs or dynasties, as may result from a statistical comparison, is not to be considered an evidence that can justify far-reaching conclusions.
- The dating methods of the conventional science —such as radiocarbon (carbon-14) method, dendrochronology, thermoluminiscence...— cannot be accepted in an uncritical way, because these methods have been developed by comparison of objects which were considered well-dated... but only according to conventional chronology. Thus, the results they offer as an outcome are already part of the input and cannot be considered as an independent fact.