Introduction
Is this scholarship?
To change our view of history in such a radical way as we suggest here is of course an enormous effort. It is not surprising, then, that many a voice is raised to disqualify the ideas expressed here as 'pseudo-science', as esoterical beliefs or just as a kind of new style of historic literature.
What's more, this might be even partially caused by the opinion of some participants in the debate, who distance themselves from the word 'science' or 'scholars', believing that these words stand for a world of academic writer isolated from reality. Here we don't aim to enter such a terminological discussion.
But we should make clear that the arguments and debates on CronoLogo are scholarly in the best sense of this word:
- they are based always on overall accepted fundaments
- they are critical regarding the sources: nothing is accepted before questioning the source
- they only accept results which can be understood in a rational way
- they favour always the simpliest of all possible explanations
In this sense, to declare faked all diplomas of the Middle Ages or all tombstones of the Visigoths is not at all a lack of scholarly thinking; it is even a more scholarly opinion than the mainstream one. We shouldn't forget that the most prestigious scholars have, after years of research, established that the biggest part of the diplomas and stone engravings are certainly fakes; only the smaller part has been recognized as 'authentic' and made it into our museums and schoolbooks.
A new critical research which questions once more these pieces and asks in every case what are the arguments to exclude them from the group of fakes and to include them in the category of authentic pieces, and if those arguments are convincing, is undoubtedly a scholarly way of working.
Obviously, this work must be accomplished without prejudice, and without fear of destroying a great national past, be it the Visigothic empire, be it Charlemagne. If it comes out that long periods of History offer no secure archaeological findings or documents, then we have no other choice than to look closely on our chronology and to ask on what it is based. And if we find out that it is based on religious and ideological documents, written to support a determined power or organisation, than we can't avoid analysing in a very critical way all our historiography.
That is exactly what CronoLogo does. Every single step is understandable in a rational way for everybody who has an interest in history. Of course, as this work is based on a very detailed analysis of the sources - that is the only way to find the mistakes in our conventional image of history - quite a heavy amount of texts and documents must be read. CronoLogo aims to promote this task; therefore you'll find here quite a lot of different contributions which you can browse to shape your own opinion.